PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

-versus-SB-16-CRM-0043For: Violation of Art. 171

Par. 4, RPC

P/SSUPT. AKMADM. MAMALINTA,Accused. Present:

QUIROZ,J.,ChairpersonCRUZ, J. andECONG, J.

PROMULGATED:

F-f.)cJrv or '/ I I W I. AX ------------------------------------------------------------------------X

RESOLUTION

Econg, J.:

This resolves the Motion to Dismiss filed by accusedMamalinta grounded on the violation of his right to the speedydisposition of cases filed against him.

On July 8,2002, the "Concerned PNP Senior Officers" fileda complaint against accused praying for his dismissal fromservice for dishonesty and for criminal prosecution forfalsification."

On July 4, 2008, the fact-finding Bureau of the Office ofthe Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law EnforcementOfficers (OMB-MOLEO)filed an affidavit-complaint chargingaccused of Falsification defined in Art. 171, par. 4 of the RevisedPenal Code.? After investigation, the OMB-MOLEOissued thejoint Resolution dated September 1, 2014 finding probablecause to indict accused for Falsification, which resolution wasapproved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on June 5,

1 Letter Complaint of Concerned PNP Senior Officers found in the records of the case from the OMB . !2 Undated Affidavit-Complaint signed by Gladys Marie R. Postrado and subscribed on July 4, 2008. I

ResolutionPeople v. Mamalinta (SB16-CRM-0043)Page 2 of8x --------------------------------------------------------------x

2015.3 The information for Falsification was filed before thisCourt on January 22,2016.

After the case was filed in Court, accused prayed for theconduct of a reinvestigation of the case contending that he didnot have the opportunity to controvert the charges against himduring the preliminary investigation, a stage wherein accusedhas a statutory right to participate. The prosecution submitteda copy of their Resolution dated July 4, 2016 where the Officeof the Ombudsman "denied the motion for reinvestigation forlack of merit."4

On November 7, 2016, accused filed a motion to dismissinvoking his right to the speedy disposition of his case. Heasserted that the Ombudsman took almost six (6) years toconclude its fact-finding investigation and another six (6) yearsand eleven (11) months to conclude its preliminary investigationnotwithstanding the fact that accused was not able toparticipate in the said preliminary investigation. 5

To support his assertion of inordinate delay, he cited thefollowing cases>:

l. Angchangco v. Ombudsman when the letter complaintsagainst a court sheriff were unresolved by the OMB-Mindanao for more than six (6)years;

2. Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan when the lettercomplaint was received on November 9, 2001 but theresolution of investigation was approved by theOmbudsman only on May 21, 2009 or eight (8) yearsafter;

3. People v. Sandiganbayan where the complaint wasinitiated on November 25, 2002 but then OmbudsmanMerceditas Gutierrez approved the resolution to file theInformation before the Sandiganbayan on April 15,2008. The fact-finding and the preliminaryinvestigation lasted for five (5)years and five (5)months.The Supreme Court found a violation of the the right tospeedy disposition of their cases.

3 Page 9, Ombudsman's Joint Resolution.4 Annex A to prosecution's Compliance received on July 12, 2016.5 Par. 3, Motion to Dismiss6 Par. 4, Ibid.

ResolutionPeople v, Mamalinta (SB16-CRM-0043)Page 3 of8x -------------------------------------------------------------- x

Accused pointed out that in his case, more than twelve (12)years lapsed from the time the anonymous. lettercomplaint was filed with the Ombudsman up to theapproval by the Ombudsman of the resolution findingprobable cause on June 5, 2015. He claims that his delayis unjustifiable.

On November 11, 2016, the prosecution filed its Commentwhere they alleged that the motion of accused is withoutmerit and that August 8, 2012, the date when theanonymous letter complaint was filed, should not beconsidered as the period to reckon with. The following arethe salient dates as regards the complaint filed againstaccused during the fact finding and preliminaryinvestigation stages:

a. On September 27, 2002, the Office of the DeputyOmbudsman for Mindanao endorsed the lettercomplaint to the Office of the Ombudsman for theMilitary and Other Law Enforcement Officers(MOLEO);

b. The MOLEO issued a subpoena on December 23,2002 to various offices mentioned in the letter-complaint-e.g. Office of the Regional Director-PNPARMM, PNP Records Management, Registrars ofthe University of the Philippines, PhilippineChristian University and the Lyceum of thePhilippines, the President of the Public SafetyCollege, and the Civil Service Commission, toverify the truthfulness of the allegations;

c. In January 2003, the offices submitted theircompliance;

d. On September 30, 2003, the OMB-MOLEO issuedanother subpoena to the Civil Service Commissionrequesting the latter to submit their resolution ona similar and related letter filed before them' and, ,for the Office of the Regional Director of the PNP-ARMM to submit the handwritten and signedcopies of the Personal Data Sheet of accused' ,

e. On November 3, 2003, the CivilCommission filed its compliance to thesubpoena;

ResolutionPeople v. Mamalinta (SB16-CRM-0043)Page 4 of8x --------------------------------------------------------------x

f. On January 2, 2005, the OMB-MOLEO directedthe personnel management of the PhilippineNational Police (PNP) to submit the questionedPDS of accused;

g. On August 24, 2007, an order was issued directingthe personnel management of the PNP to submitthe PDS and service record of accused;

h. On August 31, 2007, the PNP complied with theOMB-MOLEO's directive;

1. On April 16, 2008, the OMB-MOLEO submitted afact-finding report;

J. On March 29, 2009, the OMB-MOLEO issued anorder directing accused to file his counter-affidavitbut he did not do so;

k. On September 1, 2014, a joint resolution findingprobable cause for the commission of Sert. 171,par. 4 was issued and directed for the filng of anInformation;

Prosecution contends that the period of reckoning whetherthere is inordinate delay must be March 29, 2009 when theoffice of the OMB-MOLEO directed the accused to file hiscounter-affidavit as there was no case against him before that.

The sole issue for determination before this Court iswhether or not there was inordinate delay in the filing of thiscase thereby violating the right of accused to the speedydisposition of cases against him.

The prosecution's arguments and excuses cannot prevailover the constitutional right of accused to the speedydisposition of cases against him.

First, a person's right to the speedy disposition of a' caseagainst him or her is protected under Article III of the 1987Constitution, which is known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill ofRights enumerates a person's (not just citizen's) rights that areself-enabling, inalienable, indubitable, and it serves as alimitation to the acts of the state. Generally, any governme talaction, acts of the Office of the Ombudsman included

ResolutionPeople v. Mamalinta (SB16-CRM-0043)Page 5 of 8x --------------------------------------------------------------x

violation of the Bill of Rights, is void. The Bill of Rightsprovisions are also generally self-executing. 7

Thus, the Supreme Court held:

The Bill of Rights is a set of prescriptions settingforth the fundamental civil and political rights of theindividual, and imposing limitations on the powersof government as a means of securing the enjoymentof those rights. The Bill of Rights is designed topreserve the ideals of liberty, equality and securityagainst the assault of opportunism, the expediencyof the passing hour, the erosion of smallencroachments, and the scorn and derision of thosewho have no patience with general principles. 8

On the other hand, Article XI, Section 12 of the 1987Constitution mandates "The Ombudsman and his Deputies, asprotectors of the people" to bear the duty to "act promptly oncomplaints filed in any form or manner against public officialsor employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency orinstrumentality thereof, including government-owned orcontrolled corporations" as well as "notify the complainants ofthe action taken and the result thereof." Certainly, the duty ofthe Ombudsman to act promptly and expeditiously in theperformance of its function is not just limited to preliminaryinvestigations in criminal cases but also includes fact-findinginvestigations, administrative investigations as well aspreliminary inquiries under R.A. No. 1379, which is akin topreliminary investigation in criminal cases.

In Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan 9, the Supreme Courtexplained that "As the institutional vanguard againstcorruption and bureaucracy, the Office of the Ombudsmanshould create a system of accountability in order to ensure thatcases before it are resolved with reasonable dispatch and toequally expose those who are responsible for its delays x x x."

Moreover, the Supreme Court, through Mme. JusticeAngelina Sandoval-Gutierrez in Enriquez v. Office' of theOmbudsman 10, held that the Ombudsman was:

x x x constitutionally created to be the "protector ofthe people," with the expressed mandate that it"shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form

7 Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political law (2009).8 PBM Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills, G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1 '9 G.R. Nos. 191411 and 191871, July 15, 2013. r10 G.R. Nos. 174902-06, February 15, 2008, 569 Phil309-323. .

ResolutionPeople v. Mamalinta (SB16-CRM-0043)Page 60f8x --------------------------------------------------------------x

or manner against officers or employees of theGovernment, or of any subdivision, agency orinstrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforce theiradministrative, civil and criminal liability in everycase where the evidence warrants in order topromote efficient service by the Government to thepeople."

xxx xxxThese powers, junctions and duties are aimed toenable respondent to be "amore active and effectiveagent of the people in ensuring accountability inpublic office." Unfortunately, respondent hastransgressed its constitutional and statutory duties.When the Constitution enjoins respondent to "actpromptly" on any complaint against any publicofficer or employee, it has the concomitant duty tospeedily resolve the same. But respondent did notact promptly or resolve speedily petitioners' cases.The Rules of Procedure of the Office of theOmbudsman requires that the hearing officer isgiven a definite period of "not later than thirty (30)days" to resolve the case after the formal .investigation shall have been concluded. Definitely,respondent did not observe this 3~-day rule.

The Office of the Ombudsman, including the MOLEO, hasthe burden to resolve cases, such as the case of accusedpending before it speedily, expeditiously and with dispatch. Inthe instant case, there was a long gap or lull in the processingof this case, both in the fact -finding and preliminaryinvestigation stages. Particularly, from the time the CivilService Commission complied with the subpoena submitted bythe OMB-MOLEO on November 3, 20.0.3, more than a year orthirteen (13) months passed when the OMB-OMBdid not do anyfurther action and allowed this case' to remain pending,considering that its next action was only on January 2, 20.0.5when it sent a directive to the PNP personnel management tosubmit the PDS of accused.

Another long lull ensued before the OMB-MOLEO's nextaction towards the resolution of this case. On August 24, 20.0.7or two (2) years and seven (7) months from the last action, theOMB-MOLEO again issued the same directive to the PNP'personnel management directorate. Eight (8) months;thereafter, the fact-finding phase was completed. !

ResolutionPeople v. Mamalinta (SB16-CRM-0043)Page 70f8x --------------------------------------------------------------x

In sum, the entire fact-finding investigation stage by theOMB-MOLEO started in the last quarter of 2002, after the Officeof OMB-Mindanao endorsed the letter-complaint of the"Concerned PNP Senior Officers" and was terminated on April16, 2008. Based on the timeline of case events presented bythe prosecution, the fact-finding investigation involved thegathering of data and validating the annexes submitted by thecomplainants. To do this, the OMB-MOLEO resorted to issuingsubpoenae and issuing directives for certain offices to submitcertain documents. Given the broad powers of this office, itcould have compelled the offices and the persons ordered toproduce or submit the required documents within the periodstated in their directive. And once the documents were received,the OMB-MOLEO should have acted on it right away and notallow the long and unjustifiable gaps of inaction.

The fate of this case did not improve at the preliminaryinvestigation stage. After the fact-finding report and the verifiedcomplaint was filed, there was another eleven (11) months ofinaction before the OMB-MOLEO issued an order directingaccused (then respondent) to file his counter-affidavit andfinally, it took more than five (5)years for them to complete theirpreliminary investigation.

Unfortunately, prosecution has not offered any rhyme orreason for the length of time in the conduct of their proceedings.Nor did it try to explain the several lulls in the processing of thiscase. They, however, tried to dispute when the period for thedetermination of "inordinate delay" should be reckoned from.They reasoned that considering that accused knew of and wasmade to answer the accusation when he was directed to file hiscounter-affidavit, this is technically when the case against himcommenced. The Court, however, does not share the sameVIew.

It could not be over emphasized that the Office of theOmbudsman, as the "protector of the people", was conceived bythe framers of the constitution to ensure the accountability ofall public officials. The only tool that any public official hasagainst the said powerful office is his right to invoke hisconstitutional rights including the right to the speedydisposition of cases against him. Thus, once a complaint islodged with the Office of the Ombudsman, the clock ticks andthey are obliged to dispose of the case with dispatch.

Lastly, the accused is correct when he said that the caselodged against him in the anonymous complaint was a simple]

ResolutionPeople v. Mamalinta (SB16-CRM-0043)Page 8 of 8x -------------------------------------------------------------~ x

case for falsification. As a matter of fact, the documents tosupport the charge were already appended to the saidcomplaint. As to why it took the Ombudsman-MOLEO years toconfirm the docurnerrts, it remains to be a question.

WHEREFOR ..E, in view of the aforegoing, the case againstaccused Mamalinta is hereby DISMISSED for being violative ofhis right to the speedy disposition of cases lodged against him.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

~ iMtt M;VMGERALDINE FAITH A. LECONG

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RE~P.CRUZ~~~i~~J~stice