View full case

JOAN V. ALARILLA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

Petitioner Joan V. Alarilla was elected as city mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan in May 2007. In January 2008, a complaint was filed against petitioner and her deceased husband for malversation through falsification of public documents. The complaint alleged that petitioner and her husband misappropriated public funds by issuing and receiving checks for goods and services that were not actually delivered or rendered. The Office of the Ombudsman directed petitioner and her husband to file their counter-affidavits, which they did in July 2008. Petitioner's husband passed away in March 2009. After almost nine years, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioner for malversation and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, emphasizing the violation of her right to speedy disposition of cases due to the delay in resolving the case. The motion was denied, and criminal charges were filed against petitioner before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner then filed an omnibus motion asserting the inordinate delay in the case, but it was denied by the Sandiganbayan. She filed a petition for certiorari, raising the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in ruling that her right to speedy disposition of cases was not violated.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner's right to speedy disposition of cases was violated due to the inordinate delay of the Ombudsman in conducting preliminary investigation.

  2. Whether the Ombudsman's failure to provide specific time periods for conducting preliminary investigations is a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases.

  3. Whether the delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation was reasonable and justified.

  4. Whether the petitioner timely raised her right to speedy disposition of cases.

  5. Whether or not the seller breached the warranty against hidden defects.

  6. Whether or not the buyer is entitled to a rescission of the contract.

  7. Whether or not the buyer is entitled to the reimbursement of the purchase price and attorney's fees.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that the petitioner's right to speedy disposition of cases was indeed violated by the Ombudsman's inordinate delay in conducting preliminary investigation.

  2. The Court held that the Ombudsman's failure to provide specific time periods for conducting preliminary investigations is a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases. The Court explained that although the rules of the Ombudsman did not provide for specific time periods, the time periods provided in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure would be deemed applicable. The Court emphasized that citizens should not be prejudiced by the Ombudsman's failure to provide for particular time periods in its own Rules of Procedure.

  3. The prosecution failed to prove that the delay was reasonable and justified. The prosecution's justifications for the delay were insufficient and flimsy. The complexity of the issues and the volume of evidence were not adequately proven. The consolidation of cases was not a valid excuse, especially since one of the cases was filed solely against the petitioner's deceased husband. The prosecution's excuse that the petitioner's request for an extension caused delay was also not substantial, as the extension was not significant. Therefore, the Ombudsman exceeded the specified time period for preliminary investigations.

  4. The petitioner timely and consistently raised her right to speedy disposition of cases before both the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman's own procedural rules prohibit motions to dismiss, so persons with pending cases before the Ombudsman have no legitimate avenues to assert their right to speedy disposition of cases at the preliminary investigation level. The petitioner asserted her right when she filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman. She also invoked her Constitutional right at the earliest possible opportunity before she was even arraigned in the Sandiganbayan. Her consistent assertions demonstrated that she did not waive nor sleep on her right to speedy disposition of cases.

  5. The seller breached the warranty against hidden defects.

  6. The buyer is entitled to a rescission of the contract.

  7. The buyer is entitled to the reimbursement of the purchase price and attorney's fees.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The period taken for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of the formal complaint shall not be included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay.

  • The burden of proof for justifiably invoking the right to speedy disposition of cases depends on whether the right is invoked within the given time periods or beyond the given time period.

  • The determination of the length of delay is not mechanical and must consider the entire context of the case.

  • Malicious intent may be gauged from the behavior of the prosecution throughout the proceedings, and if properly alleged and substantially proven, malicious prosecution would lead to automatic dismissal of the case.

  • The waiver of the accused to the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial is a valid exception.

  • The right to speedy disposition of cases must be timely raised through the appropriate motion. Failure to do so waives the right.

  • The causes of the delays must be properly laid out and discussed by the court in cases of dismissals due to inordinate delay.

  • The Ombudsman's failure to provide specific time periods for conducting preliminary investigations is a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases.

  • Once the specified time period for preliminary investigations is exceeded, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to establish that the delay was reasonable and justified.

  • Any delay in the resolution of a preliminary investigation is not justified unless extraordinary complications are adequately proven.

  • The right to speedy disposition of cases must be timely raised, and it is sufficient to assert the right at the earliest possible opportunity, even after preliminary investigation.

  • Warranty against hidden defects - This warranty imposes upon the seller the obligation to deliver goods which are free from hidden defects that make them unfit for the use they are intended for, or which diminish their fitness for such use to an extent that the buyer would not have bought them or would have bought them for a lesser price had he known of the defects.

  • Rescission of contract - In case of breach of warranty against hidden defects, the buyer has the option to either:

a. Demand the reimbursement of the purchase price and other expenses, or

b. Retain the thing and ask for a proportionate reduction of the price.

  • Reimbursement of purchase price and attorney's fees - If the buyer opts for rescission of the contract and demands the reimbursement of the purchase price, he is also entitled to claim attorney's fees, if any were incurred.