FACTS:

Juanito Victor C. Remulla (Remulla) filed a criminal complaint against Erineo S. Maliksi (Maliksi), the governor of Cavite, before the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Remulla alleged that Maliksi caused the purchase of medical supplies without conducting any public bidding, giving unwarranted benefit to a specific corporation. After almost nine years, the Ombudsman found probable cause against Maliksi and filed an information against him before the Sandiganbayan. Maliksi filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that there was inordinate delay in the proceedings, resulting in a violation of his right to a speedy disposition of the case. The Sandiganbayan found that Maliksi's right was indeed violated, and dismissed the case against him. The Sandiganbayan stated that the delay was caused by the Ombudsman's failure to expedite the resolution of the case within a reasonable time. The Sandiganbayan denied a motion for partial reconsideration, reiterating that the delays were unnecessary and unacceptable. Remulla filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case against Maliksi. Maliksi, the Ombudsman, and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) all presented their arguments in response to the petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioner, Remulla, has legal standing to file the petition challenging the dismissal of the criminal case.

2. Whether or not the right to a speedy disposition of cases was violated in this case.

3. Whether the delay in the proceedings violated the petitioner's right to a speedy disposition of the case.

4. Whether the petitioner's failure to assert his right to a speedy trial affects the outcome of the case.

5. Whether the petitioners have the duty to follow up on the prosecution of their case.

6. Whether the petitioner has the right to complain about the inordinate delay in the disposition of his case.

7. Whether the failure of the petitioner to seasonably invoke his right to a speedy disposition of cases waives his right to complain about the delay.

8. Whether the delay in the proceedings against the accused violated the right to a speedy disposition of cases

9. Whether the Ombudsman failed to justify the delay in the proceedings

10. Whether there was inordinate delay in the proceedings of the case against Maliksi.

11. Whether the reasons provided by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) justify the delay.

12. Whether the delay in the preliminary investigation process violated the petitioner's constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.

13. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case against the petitioner.

RULING:

1. The petitioner, Remulla, does not have legal standing to file the petition challenging the dismissal of the criminal case. Procedural law mandates that criminal actions be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. Only on rare occasions, when there is a denial of due process or where the dismissal of the case is capricious, can the offended party pursue the criminal action on his own behalf. Remulla failed to qualify under any of these exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, he has no legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case.

2. The right to a speedy disposition of cases is a relative concept. It is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. The conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed in a balancing test to determine whether the right to a speedy disposition of the case has been violated.

3. Yes, the delay in the proceedings violated the petitioner's right to a speedy disposition of the case. The Court held that there was unjustified delay in the preliminary investigation, inordinate delay in the exercise of discretion to file criminal cases, and failure to timely exercise discretion. In Coscolluela, it was emphasized that it is the duty of the prosecutor to expedite the prosecution of the case regardless of the fact that the accused did not object to the delay.

4. Yes, the petitioner's failure to assert his right to a speedy trial affects the outcome of the case. The Court cited the case of Guerrero and reiterated that the case could have taken a different dimension if the petitioner had actively asserted his right to a speedy trial.

5. No, the petitioners do not have the duty to follow up on the prosecution of their case. The Court ruled that it was not the petitioners' duty to follow up on the prosecution of their case and that they were not obliged to take any step to accelerate the disposition of their case.

6. The petitioner has the right to complain about the inordinate delay in the disposition of his case. The Court reiterated the doctrine that it is not the petitioner's duty to follow up on the prosecution of their case.

7. The failure of the petitioner to seasonably invoke his right to a speedy disposition of cases does not waive his right to complain about the delay.

8. The Court held that the right to a speedy disposition of cases is a relative and flexible concept. The factors in the balancing test must be weighed according to the different facts and circumstances of each case. The courts have wide judicial discretion in analyzing the context of the case and considering the prejudice caused by the delay to both the accused and the State.

9. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman failed to justify the delay in the proceedings. The explanation provided by the Office of the Special Prosecutor regarding the delay was not sufficient to warrant the prolonged delay in resolving the case.

10. Yes, there was inordinate delay in the proceedings of the case against Maliksi. The delay in the proceedings lasted for a total period of nine (9) years, even after excluding the fact-finding stage. The delay started from the fact-finding investigation in December 2005 until the completion of the preliminary investigation in August 2014 and the filing of the information in November 2014.

11. No, the reasons provided by the OSP do not justify the delay. The OSP failed to provide a reasonable justification for the delay of six (6) years in the resolution of the case against Maliksi. The delay in the approval of the Remulla complaints, the transfer of memoranda and case records, and the unaccounted 4-year period during the consolidation of the cases were not acceptable reasons for the delay. The occurrence of unrelated events, such as the 2010 hostage-taking and the impeachment complaint against the Ombudsman, also cannot justify the delay in the proceedings.

12. The Court ruled that the delay in the preliminary investigation process violated the petitioner's constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. The Ombudsman's inaction, which led to a chain of delays lasting for nine years, caused prejudice to the petitioner and deprived him of the opportunity to timely present his case in court. The prosecution failed to provide an acceptable reason for the delay, and the Ombudsman did not take any steps to ensure a timely resolution of the preliminary investigation. It is the duty of the prosecutor to expedite the prosecution of the case regardless of whether or not the accused objects to the delay.

13. The Court also ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case against the petitioner. The Sandiganbayan thoroughly considered the length of delay, the Ombudsman's failure to provide a suitable reason for the delay, and the prejudice it caused to the petitioner. The petitioner's lack of follow up with his case was not given much weight due to the prosecution's failure to justify the protracted delay in the proceedings. The balancing test was properly applied, and the Sandiganbayan made a reasoned decision based on the circumstances of the case.

PRINCIPLES:

• Criminal actions must be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor.

• Only in exceptional circumstances, such as a denial of due process or capricious dismissal of the case, can the offended party pursue the criminal action on his own behalf.

• The right to a speedy disposition of cases is a relative concept and is deemed violated when there are vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays or unjustified postponements.

• The conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed in a balancing test to determine whether the right to a speedy disposition of the case has been violated.

• The delay in the proceedings may violate the accused's right to a speedy disposition of the case.

• It is the duty of the prosecutor to expedite the prosecution of the case, regardless of whether the accused objected to the delay.

• The accused may affect the outcome of the case if they fail to actively assert their right to a speedy trial.

• The accused is not duty-bound to follow up on the prosecution of their case.

• It is not the duty of the petitioner to follow up on the prosecution of their case.

• The right to a speedy disposition of cases is not waived by the failure to seasonably invoke it.

• Prejudice should be assessed in the light of the interests of the defendant that the speedy trial was designed to protect, including preventing oppressive pre-trial incarceration, minimizing anxiety and concerns of the accused, and limiting the impairment of the defense.

• Delay is a two-edged sword, as it may make it difficult or impossible for the government to carry its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

• The reason or justification of the State for delay should be considered and different weights should be assigned to different reasons or justifications.

• The assertion or non-assertion of the right to a speedy disposition of cases does not determine whether the case should be dismissed for inordinate delay.

• The accused has no duty to follow up on his case; it is the state's duty to bring the accused to trial and ensure that the trial is consistent with due process.

• The factors in the balancing test for determining whether there is inordinate delay in the proceedings must be given different consideration and weight based on the factual circumstances of each case.

• The Ombudsman has the responsibility to expedite proceedings within the bounds of reasonable timeliness, in view of its mandate to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.

• The guarantee of speedy disposition under Section 16 of Article III of the Constitution applies to all cases pending before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

• Inordinate delay in the proceedings violates the right to a speedy disposition of a case.

• The functions of the Ombudsman under the Constitution are not suspended by the occurrence of unrelated events to its mandate.

• The right to a speedy disposition of cases is guaranteed by the Constitution and encompasses the timely conduct of preliminary investigations.

• The prosecutor has the duty to expedite the prosecution of the case, regardless of whether or not the accused objects to the delay.

• Inordinate delay in the conduct of a preliminary investigation violates the constitutional rights of the accused.

• The absence of a preliminary investigation can be corrected, but undue delay in its conduct cannot be corrected until a method for setting back time is invented.