A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC Delays in The Sandiganbayan 2001

5/11/2019 A. M. No.
00-8-05-SC
Today is Saturday, May 11, 2019
Custom Search
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
EN BANC
A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC November 28, 2001
RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN
RESOLUTION
PARDO, J.:
The Case
Submitted to the Court for consideration is a resolution of the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(hereafter, the IBP) recommending an inquiry into the causes of delays in the resolution of incidents and motions
and in the decision of cases pending before the Sandiganbayan.
The Antecedents
On July 31, 2000, the IBP, through its National President, Arthur D. Lim, transmitted to the Court a Resolution1
addressing the problem of delays in cases pending before the Sandiganbayan (hereafter, the Resolution).2 We
quote the Resolution in full:3
"WHEREAS, Section 16, Article III of the Constitution guarantees that, "[a]ll persons shall have the right to a
speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies,"
"WHEREAS, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers mandates that "[a] lawyer shall
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice;"
"WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to undertake measures to assist in the
speedy disposition of cases pending before the various courts and tribunals;
"WHEREAS, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has received numerous complaints from its members about
serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before
the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan;
"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 requires all Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts to submit to the Supreme Court a bi-
annual report indicating the title of the case, its date of filing, the date of pre-trial in civil cases and
arraignment in criminal cases, the date of initial trial, the date of last hearing and the date that the case is
submitted for decision, and to post, in a conspicuous place within its premises, a monthly list of cases
submitted for decision;
"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not been made applicable to the
Sandiganbayan;
"WHEREAS, considering that the Sandiganbayan is also a trial court, the requirements imposed upon trial
courts by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 should also be imposed upon the Sandiganbayan;
"NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
hereby resolves as follows:
"1. To recommend to the Supreme Court that Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 be made
applicable to the Sandiganbayan in regard cases over which the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction; and
"2. To recommend to the Supreme Court an inquiry into the causes of delay in the resolution of incidents and
motions and in the decision of cases before the Sandiganbayan for the purpose of enacting measures
intended at avoiding such delays.
"Done in Los Baños, Laguna, this 29th day of July, 2000."
On August 8, 2000, the Court required Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena to comment on the
letter of the IBP and to submit a list of all Sandiganbayan cases pending decision, or with motion for reconsideration
pending resolution, indicating the dates they were deemed submitted for decision or resolution.4
On September 27, 2000, complying with the order, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a report5
(hereafter, the compliance) admitting a number of cases submitted for decision and motion for reconsideration
pending resolution before its divisions. We quote:
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/am_00-8-05-sc_2001.html 1/26
5/11/2019 "Cases A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
W/ Motions For
Submitted
Reconsideration
"For Decision
"1st Division 341 None
"2nd Division 5 None
"3rd Division 12 None
"4th Division 5 None
"5th Division 52 1
"Total 415"6
Thus, the Sandiganbayan has a total of four hundred fifteen (415) cases for decision remaining undecided long
beyond the reglementary period to decide, with one case submitted as early as May 24, 1990,7 and motion for
reconsideration which has remained unresolved over thirty days from submission.8
On October 20, 2000, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a "schedule of cases
submitted for decision, the schedule indicating the number of detained prisoners, of which there are (were) none."9
On October 26, 2000, the IBP submitted its reply to the compliance stating: First, that it was not in a position to
comment on the accuracy of the compliance; nonetheless, it showed that there was much to be desired with regard
to the expeditious disposition of cases, particularly in the Sandiganbayan's First Division, where cases submitted for
decision since 1990 remained unresolved. Second, the compliance did not include pending motions, and it is a fact
that motions not resolved over a long period of time would suspend and delay the disposition of a case. Third, since
the Sandiganbayan is a trial court, it is required to submit the same reports required of Regional Trial Courts. Fourth,
the Constitution10states that, "all lower collegiate courts" must decide or resolve cases or matters before it within
twelve (12) months "from date of submission"; however, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is required to resolve
and decide cases within a reduced period of three (3) months like regional trial courts, or at the most, six (6) months
from date of submission.11
On November 21, 2000, the Court resolved to direct then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo (hereafter, the
OCA) "to conduct a judicial audit of the Sandiganbayan, especially on the cases subject of this administrative
matter, and to submit a report thereon not later than 31 December 2000."12
On December 4, 2000, in a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted
that the First Division of the Sandiganbayan13 has a backlog of cases; that one case14 alone made the backlog of
the First Division so large, involving 156 cases but the same has been set for promulgation of decision on December
8, 2000, which would reduce the backlog by at least fifty percent (50%).15
On January 26, 2001, the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum to the Court16 stating that the causes of
delay in the disposition of cases before the Sandiganbayan are:17
(1) Failure of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to submit reinvestigation report despite the lapse of several
years;
(2) Filing of numerous incidents such as Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Quash, Demurrer to Evidence, etc. that
remain unresolved for years;
(3) Suspension of proceedings because of a pending petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme
Court;
(4) Cases remain unacted upon or have no further settings despite the lapse of considerable length of time;
and
(5) Unloading of cases already submitted for decision even if the ponente is still in service.
We consider ex mero motu the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as an administrative
complaint against Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena for "serious delays in the decision of cases and in the
resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan," amounting to
incompetence, inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and misconduct in office.
We find no need to conduct a formal investigation of the charges in view of the admission of Justice Francis E.
Garchitorena in his compliance of October 20, 2000, that there are indeed hundreds of cases pending decision
beyond the reglementary period of ninety (90) days from their submission. In one case, he not only admitted the
delay in deciding the case but took sole responsibility for such inaction for more than ten (10) years that constrained
this Court to grant mandamus to dismiss the case against an accused to give substance and meaning to his
constitutional right to speedy trial.18
The Issues
The issues presented are the following: (1) What is the reglementary period within which the Sandiganbayan must
decide/resolve cases falling within its jurisdiction? (2) Are there cases submitted for decision remaining undecided
by the Sandiganbayan or any of its divisions beyond the afore-stated reglementary period? (3) Is Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No. 1094 applicable to the Sandiganbayan?19
The Court's Ruling
We resolve the issues presented in seriatim.
1. Period To Decide/Resolve Cases.-- There are two views. The first view is that from the time a case is submitted
for decision or resolution, the Sandiganbayan has twelve (12) months to decide or resolve it.20 The second view is
5/11/2019 that as a court with trial function, the Sandiganbayan has
A. M.three (3) months to decide the case from the date of
No. 00-8-05-SC
submission for decision.21
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 Constitution provides:
"Sec. 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved
within twenty-four months from date of submission to the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
"(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself."22
The above provision does not apply to the Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to regular courts of lower collegiate
level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of Appeals.23
The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent
powers of a court of justice,24 with functions of a trial court.25
Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one.26 The Sandiganbayan was originally empowered
to promulgate its own rules of procedure.27 However, on March 30, 1995, Congress repealed the Sandiganbayan's
power to promulgate its own rules of procedure28 and instead prescribed that the Rules of Court promulgated by the
Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan.29
"Special courts are judicial tribunals exercising limited jurisdiction over particular or specialized categories of
actions. They are the Court of Tax Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Shari'a Courts."30
Under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution "Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court."
In his report, the Court Administrator would distinguish between cases which the Sandiganbayan has cognizance of
in its original jurisdiction,31 and cases which fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.32 The Court
Administrator posits that since in the first class of cases, the Sandiganbayan acts more as a trial court, then for that
classification of cases, the three (3) month reglementary period applies. For the second class of cases, the
Sandiganbayan has the twelve-month reglementary period for collegiate courts.33 We do not agree.
The law creating the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 160634 is clear on this issue.35 It provides:
"Sec. 6. Maximum period for termination of cases – As far as practicable, the trial of cases before the
Sandiganbayan once commenced shall be continuous until terminated and the judgment shall be rendered
within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision."
On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules,36 thus:37
"Sec. 3 Maximum Period to Decide Cases – The judgment or final order of a division of the Sandiganbayan
shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision (italics ours)."
Given the clarity of the rule that does not distinguish, we hold that the three (3) month period, not the twelve (12)
month period, to decide cases applies to the Sandiganbayan. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan presently sitting in
five (5) divisions,38 functions as a trial court. The term "trial" is used in its broad sense, meaning, it allows
introduction of evidence by the parties in the cases before it.39 The Sandiganbayan, in original cases within its
jurisdiction, conducts trials, has the discretion to weigh the evidence of the parties, admit the evidence it regards as
credible and reject that which they consider perjurious or fabricated.40
Compliance with its Own Rules
In Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) v. Court of Appeals,41 the Court faulted the DARAB
for violating its own rules of procedure. We reasoned that the DARAB does not have unfettered discretion to
suspend its own rules. We stated that the DARAB "should have set the example of observance of orderly
procedure." Otherwise, it would render its own Revised Rules of Procedure uncertain and whose permanence would
be dependent upon the instability of its own whims and caprices.
Similarly, in Cabagnot v. Comelec,42 this Court held that the Commission on Elections ought to be the first one to
observe its own Rules. Its departure from its own rules constitutes "arrogance of power" tantamount to abuse. Such
inconsistency denigrates public trust in its objectivity and dependability. The Court reminded the Comelec to be
more judicious in its actions and decisions and avoid imprudent volte-face moves that undermine the public's faith
and confidence in it.
The ratio decidendi in the afore-cited cases applies mutatis mutandis to the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan
ought to be the first to observe its own rules. It cannot suspend its rules, or except a case from its operation.
2. Undecided Cases Beyond the Reglementary Period.-- We find that the Sandiganbayan has several cases
undecided beyond the reglementary period set by the statutes and its own rules, some as long as more than ten
(10) years ago.
According to the compliance submitted by the Sandiganbayan, three hundred and forty one (341) cases were
submitted for decision but were undecided as of September 15, 2000. A number of the cases were submitted for
decision as far back as more than ten (10) years ago. As of September 15, 2000, the following cases43 had not
been decided:44
First Division
Case Title Case No. Date Submitted for
5/11/2019 Decision
A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
(1) People v. Pañares 12127 May 24, 1990
(2) People v. Gabriel Duero 11999 December 11,
1990
(3) People v. Rhiza Monterozo 133533 December 14,
1990
(4) People v. Zenon R. Perez 13353 January 7, 1991
(5) People v. Bernardo B. Dayao, Jr. 12305-12306 February 7, 1991
(6) People v. Melquiades Ribo 13521 May 7, 1991
(7) People v. Carlos Benitez 12102 June 19, 1991
(8) People v. Salvador P. Nopre, et. al. 11156-11160 August 9, 1991
(9) People v. Delfina A. Letegio 12289 August 28, 1991
(10) People v. Rodolfo A. Lasquite 13618 August 28, 1991
(11) People v. Potenciana Evangelista 13679-13680 September 3, 1991
(12) People v. Ramon N. Guico, Jr. et. 16516 December 2, 1991
al
(13) People v. Ruperto N. Solares 16239 January 10, 1992
(14) People v. Socorro Alto 13708 March 9, 1992
(15) People v. Tomas Baguio 130151 March 11, 1992
(16) People v. Felipa D. de Veyra 13672 April 13, 1992
(17) People v. Felicidad Tabang 12139 July 23, 1992
(18) People v. Jose S. Buguiña 14227 September 9, 1992
(19) People v. Eleno T. Regidor, et al. 13689-13695 January 6, 1993
(20) People v. Serafin Unilongo 14411 February 2, 1993
(21) People v. Manuel Parale, et al. 15168 June 21, 1993
(22) People v. Robert P. Wa-acon 14375 June 21, 1993
(23) People v. Linda J. Necessito 13668 July 13, 1993
(24) People v. Simon Flores 16946 August 4, 1993
(25) People v. Alejandro F. Buccat 14986 August 31, 1993
(26) People v. Irma Collera Monge 15301 March 9, 1994
(27) People v. Melencio F. Ilajas 9977 May 10, 1994
(28) People v. Buenaventura Q. 13747-13748 August 19, 1994
Sindac, et al.
(29) People v. Jesus A. Bravo 17514 August 24, 1994
(30) People v. Raul S. Tello 15006 November 15,
1994
(31) People v. Celso N. Jacinto 14975 January 10, 1995
(32) People v. Mayor Antonio Abad 17670 January 24, 1995
Santos, et al.
(33) People v. Lamberto R. Te 20588 February 14, 1995
(34) People v. Ale Francisco 21020 July 18, 1995
(35) People v. Dir. Felix R. Gonzales, 13563 July 25, 1995
et al.
(36) People v. Mayor Adelina Gabatan, 14324 January 3, 1996
et al.
(37) People v. Victoria Posadas-Adona 17202 January 4, 1996
(38) People v. Roberto Estanislao 16854 January 22, 1996
Chang, et al.
(39) People v. Godofredo Yambao, et 16927-16928 March 13, 1996
al.
(40) People v. Honesto G. Encina 13171 April 26, 1996
(41) People v. Pablito Rodriguez 13971 May 10, 1996
(42) People v. Leandro A. Suller 17759 June 28, 1996
(43) People v. Trinidad M. Valdez 16695 August 26, 1996
(44) People v. Vivencio B. Patagoc 19651 January 27, 1997
(45) People v. Engr. Antonio B. 14195 March 31, 1997
Laguador
(46) People v. Paterno C. Belciña, Jr. 16583-16585 March 31, 1997
(47) People v. SPO3 Serafin V. Reyes 21608 March 31, 1997
5/11/2019 (48) People v. Mayor Samuel F. 22195-22196 March 31, 1997
A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
Bueser, et al.
(49) People v. Romeo C. Monteclaro 14223 May 6, 1997
(50) People v. Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo 20948-20949 October 17, 1997
(51) People v. Aniceto M. Sobrepeña 23324 October 27, 1997
(52) People v. Marietta T. Caugma, et 17001 November 26,
al. 1997
(53) People v. Mayor Meliton 19708 February 23, 1998
Geronimo, et al.
(54) People v. Fernando Miguel, et al. 17600 April 7, 1998
(55) People v. Rogelio A. Aniversario 17601 April 7, 1998
(56) People v. Corazon Gammad 9812-9967 May 8, 1998
Leaño
(57) People v. Teresita S. Lazaro 17901 June 8, 1998
(58) People v. Brig. Gen. Raymundo 20688 October 19, 1998
Jarque, et al.
(59) People v. Pros. Filotea Estorninos 23509 October 19, 1998
(60) People v. Orlando Mina 19534-19545 October 20, 1998
(61) People v. Vice Gov. Milagros A. 23042 October 20, 1998
Balgos
(62) People v. Ceferino Paredes, Jr., et 18857 November 17,
al. 1998
(63) People v. Brig. Gen. Rayundo 18696 January 15, 1999
Jarque, et al.
(64) People v. Mayor Agustin R. 23336 January 15, 1999
Escaño, Jr.
(65) People v. Mayor Edgar V. Teves, 23374 January 15, 1999
et al.
(66) People v. C/Supt. Alfonso T. 22832 January 29, 1999
Clemente, et al.
(67) People v. Dominica Santos 19059-19063 February 18, 1999
(68) People v. Edith G. Tico 23273 April 20, 1999
(69) People v. Sec. Hilarion J. Ramiro, 23511 August 6, 1999
et al.
(70) People v. Timoteo A. Garcia, et al. 24042-24098 August 6, 1999
(71) People v. Mayor Jeceju L. 24402 August 6, 1999
Manaay
(72) People v. Dir. Rosalinda Majarais, 24355 August 18, 1999
et al.
(73) People v. Victor S. Limlingan 24281 August 13, 1999
(74) People v. Nestor S. Castillo, et al. 24631 August 31, 1999
(75) People v. Apolinar Candelaria 22145 September 6, 1999
(76) People v. Bernardo Billote Resoso 19773-19779 October 11, 1999
(77) People v. Atty. Alfredo Fordan 24433-24434 October 11, 1999
Rellora, et al.
(78) People v. Faustino Balacuit 98 December 22,
1999
(79) People v. Mayor Bernardino 23418-23423 January 6, 2000
Alcaria, Jr., et al.
(80) People v. Joel R. Lachica, et al. 24319-24329 January 6, 2000
(81) People v. Jose Micabalo, et al. 24531-24534 April 27, 2000
(82) People v. Mayor Eduardo Alarilla 23069 May 29, 2000
(83) People v. Pros. Nilo M. Sarsaba, 23323 May 29, 2000
et al.
(84) People v. Philip G. Zamora 24150 May 29, 2000
Second Division*
Date Submitted for
Case Title Case No.
Decision
(1) People v. Marcelino Cordova, et al. 18435 August 11, 2000
(2) People v. Benjamin T. Damian 22858 August 11, 2000
(3)People v. Lino L. Labis, et al. 22398 July 18, 2000
5/11/2019 (4)People v. Alfredo Sarmiento, et al. 24407-24408 August 11, 2000
A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
Third Division**
Date Submitted for
Case Title Case No.
Decision
(1) People v. Sergia Zoleta A/R # 016 November 16,
1999
(2) People v. Manuel Solon Y A/R # 029 December 9, 1999
Tenchaves
(3) People v. Eliseo L. Ruiz 13861-13863 April 6, 2000
(4) People v. Manuel R. Galvez, et al. 13889 September 30,
1999
(5) People v. Tolentino Mendoza, et al. 16756 August 28, 1999
(6) People v. Rodrigo Villas 19563 April 6, 2000
(7) People v. Ernesto Vargas 19574 April 6, 2000
(8) People v. Ernesto, Vargas, et al. 20053 April 6, 2000
(9) People v. Marcelo T. Abrenica, et 23522 July 6, 2000
al.
(10) People v. Florencio Garay, et al. 25657 May 5, 2000
Fourth Division***
Date Submitted for
Case Title Case No.
Decision
(1) People v. Jaime Alos, et al. 17664 August 31, 1999
(2) People v. Antonio R. De Vera 23366 November 26,
1999
(3) People v. Aurora Mantele 24841-42 May 9, 2000
(4) People v. Olegario Clarin, Jr., et al. 25198 July 12, 2000
Fifth Division****
Date Submitted for
Case Title Case No.
Decision
(1) People v. Nestor A. Pablo 13344 January 16, 1998
(2) People v. Hernand D. Dabalus, et 14397 January 13, 1999
al.
(3) People v. Eduardo Pilapil 16672 March 23, 2000
(4) People v. P/Sgt. Nazario 17030 April 16, 1998
Marifosque
(5) People v. Ignacio B. Bueno 17055 September 12,
1995
(6) People v. Corazon G. Garlit 17072 March 31, 1997
(7) People v. Mayor Rufo Pabelonia, et 17538 November 14,
al. 1995
(8) People v. Enrique B. Lenon, et al. 17617 March 13, 1996
(9) People v. Constancio Bonite, et al. 17618-17619 May 1, 1995
(10) People v. Jesus Villanueva 17884 January 9, 1996
(11) People v. Ricardo T. Liwanag, et 18008 March 9, 1998
al.
(12) People v. Ma. Lourdes L. Falcon 18036 January 18, 1995
(13) People v. Luis D. Montero, et al. 18684 July 24, 1998
(14) People v. Roel D. Morales 18699 December 22,
1995
(15) People v. Diosdado T. Gulle 18759 October 18, 1995
(16) People v. Benjamin Sapitula, et al. 18785 August 31, 1995
(17) People v. Danilo R. Santos, et al. 18932 November 4, 1997
(18) People v. Pat. Danilo Marañon 19039 May 24, 1995
(19) People v. Romeo Cabando, et al. 19378-19379 May 27, 1996
(20) People v. SPO2 Rodolfo Burbos 19593 July 6, 1998
(21) People v. Guillermo M. Viray, et 19614 August 31, 1998
al.
(22) People v. Mayor Bonifacio 20427 November 5, 1999
Balahay
5/11/2019 (23) People v. Enrique Sy, et al. 20487 December 17,
A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
1998
(24) People v. PO2 Manuel L. Bien 20648-20649 March 31, 1998
(25) People v. Felipe L. Laodenio 23066 September 28,
1999
(26) People v. Mayor Walfrido A. 23427 January 16, 1998
Siasico
The Sandiganbayan is a special court created "in an effort to maintain honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy,
weed out misfits and undesirables in the government and eventually stamp out graft and corruption."45 We have
held consistently that a delay of three (3) years in deciding a single case is inexcusably long.46 We can not accept
the excuses of Presiding Justice Sandiganbayan Francis E. Garchitorena that the court was reorganized in 1997;
that the new justices had to undergo an orientation and that the Sandiganbayan relocated to its present premises
which required the packing and crating of records; and that some boxes were still unopened.47
We likewise find unacceptable Presiding Justice Garchitorena's excuse that one case alone48 comprises more that
fifty percent (50%) of the First Division's backlog and that the same has been set for promulgation on December 8,
2000.49 As we said, a delay in a single case cannot be tolerated, "para muestra, basta un boton." (for an example,
one button suffices). It is admitted that there are several other cases submitted for decision as far back as ten (10)
years ago that have remained undecided by the First Division, of which Justice Garchitorena is presiding justice and
chairman. Indeed, there is even one case, which is a simple motion to withdraw the information filed by the
prosecutor. This has remained unresolved for more than seven (7) years (since 1994).50 The compliance submitted
by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice incriminates him. The memorandum submitted by the Court Administrator
likewise testifies to the unacceptable situation in the Sandiganbayan. Indeed, there is a disparity in the reports
submitted by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice and the OCA. According to the Court Administrator, the cases
submitted for decision that were still pending promulgation51 before the five divisions of the Sandiganbayan are:52
First Division
Case Number Date Submitted Case Number Date Submitted
1. 11156 8/9/91 99. 23336 9/4/97
2. 11157 8/9/91 100. 23374 12/17/98
3. 11158 8/9/91 101. 23418 10/15/99
4. 11159 8/9/91 102. 23419 10/15/99
5. 11160 8/9/91 103. 23420 10/15/99
6. 11999 12/10/90 104. 23421 10/15/99
7. 12102 7/1/91 105. 23422 10/15/99
8. 12127 2/12/90 106. 23423 10/15/99
9. 12139 6/10/92 107. 23509 9/5/98
10. 12289 8/28/91 108. 23511 4/23/99
11. 12305 2/7/91 109. 23540 10/15/99
12. 12306 2/7/91 110. 24042 4/28/99
13. 13015 3/2/92 111. 24043 4/28/99
14. 13171 11/16/95 112. 24044 4/28/99
15. 13353 10/6/90 113. 24045 4/28/99
16. 13521 12/12/99 114. 24046 4/28/99
17. 13563 7/4/95 115. 24047 4/28/99
18. 13618 7/14/91 116. 24048 4/28/99
19. 13668 6/13/93 117. 24049 4/28/99
20. 13672 3/5/92 118. 24050 4/28/99
21. 13679 8/6/91 119. 24051 4/28/99
22. 13680 8/6/91 120. 24052 4/28/99
23. 13689 11/14/92 121. 24053 4/28/99
24. 13690 11/14/92 122. 24054 4/28/99
25. 13691 11/14/92 123. 24055 4/28/99
26. 13692 11/14/92 124. 24056 4/28/99
27. 13693 11/14/92 125. 24057 4/28/99
28. 13694 11/14/92 126. 24058 4/28/99
29. 13695 11/14/92 127. 24059 4/28/99
30. 13708 3/9/92 128. 24060 4/28/99
31. 13747 8/19/94 129. 24061 4/28/99
32. 13748 8/19/94 130. 24062 4/28/99
33. 13971 3/12/95 131. 24063 4/28/99
34. 14223 3/7/97 132. 24064
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/am_00-8-05-sc_2001.html 4/28/99 7/26
5/11/2019 35. 14227 A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC 4/28/99
9/5/92 133. 24065
36. 14230 11/30/90 134. 24066 4/28/99
37. 14287 7/3/94 135. 24067 4/28/99
38. 14324 11/5/95 136. 24068 4/28/99
39. 14375 5/22/95 137. 24069 4/28/99
40. 14411 1/24/93 138. 24070 4/28/99
41. 14975 9/29/94 139. 24071 4/28/99
42. 14986 12/11/92 140. 24072 4/28/99
43. 15006 11/19/94 141. 24073 4/28/99
44. 15168 3/25/93 142. 24074 4/28/99
45. 15301 3/16/94 143. 24075 4/28/99
46. 16239 12/26/91 144. 24076 4/28/99
47. 16516 11/19/91 145. 24077 4/28/99
48. 16583 8/13/96 146. 24078 4/28/99
49. 16584 8/13/96 147. 24079 4/28/99
50. 16585 8/13/96 148. 24080 4/28/99
51. 16695 8/15/96 149. 24081 4/28/99
52. 16854 1/15/96 150. 24082 4/28/99
53. 16927 12/17/95 151. 24083 4/28/99
54. 16928 12/17/95 152. 24084 4/28/99
55. 16946 8/4/93 153. 24085 4/28/99
56. 17001 9/4/97 154. 24086 4/28/99
57. 17278 5/2/94 155. 24087 4/28/99
58. 17447 9/6/94 156. 24088 4/28/99
59. 17448 9/6/94 157. 24089 4/28/99
60. 17514 8/19/94 158. 24090 4/28/99
61. 17600 8/30/97 159. 24091 4/28/99
62. 17601 8/30/97 160. 24092 4/28/99
63. 17670 11/25/94 161. 24093 4/28/99
64. 17759 6/25/96 162. 24094 4/28/99
65. 17901 5/28/98 163. 24095 4/28/99
66. 18283 2/21/95 164. 24096 4/28/99
67. 18696 8/9/98 165. 24097 4/28/99
68. 18857 10/21/98 166. 24098 4/28/99
69. 19059 2/11/99 167. 24150 1/31/00
70. 19060 2/11/99 168. 24236 2/14/00
71. 19061 2/11/99 169. 24237 2/14/00
72. 19062 2/11/99 170. 24281 5/9/99
73. 19063 2/11/99 171. 24319 11/4/99
74. 19534 9/2/98 172. 24320 11/4/99
75. 19535 9/2/98 173. 24321 11/4/99
76. 19651 11/15/96 174. 24322 11/4/99
77. 19708 8/25/98 175. 24323 11/4/99
78. 19773 5/21/99 176. 24324 11/4/99
79. 19774 5/21/99 177. 24325 11/4/99
80. 19775 5/21/99 178. 24326 11/4/99
81. 19976 5/21/99 179. 24327 11/4/99
82. 19977 5/21/99 180. 24328 11/4/99
83. 19978 5/21/99 181. 24329 11/4/99
84. 19979 5/21/99 182. 24339 10/20/00
85. 20588 2/14/95 183. 24355 2/18/99
86. 20688 7/9/98 184. 24395 7/13/99
87. 20948 10/9/97 185. 24402 6/17/99
88. 20949 10/9/97 186. 24433 9/6/99
89. 21020 7/4/95 187. 24434 9/6/99
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/am_00-8-05-sc_2001.html
90. 22145 7/7/99 188. 24531 12/16/99 8/26
5/11/2019 91. 22195 A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC12/16/99
6/14/96 189. 24532
92. 22196 6/14/96 190. 24533 12/16/99
93. 22832 10/21/98 191. 24534 12/16/99
94. 23042 8/27/98 192. 24631 8/9/99
95. 23146 11/13/00 193. 24768 7/8/00
96. 23273 4/19/99 194. 6672 7/11/90
97. 23323 3/23/00 195. 9977 5/10/94
98. 23324 8/3/97
Civil Case
1. 0112 1/11/92
2. 0116 10/16/91
3. 0156 3/14/97
Second Division
Case No. Date Submitted
Criminal Case
1. 19542 4/16/99
2. 19004 9/10/96
3. 22934 10/14/00
4. 20483 8/28/96
5. 20484 8/28/96
6. 23529 10/23/00
7. 23530 10/23/00
8. 23338 12/2/99
9. 18786 11/28/00
10. 19686 07/2/97
11. 184403 12/4/98
12. 184404 12/4/98
13. 184405 12/4/98
14. 184406 12/4/98
15. 184407 12/4/98
16. 184408 12/4/98
17. 184409 12/4/98
18. 184410 12/4/98
19. 184411 12/4/98
20. 184412 12/4/98
21. 184413 12/4/98
22. 184414 12/4/98
23. 184415 12/4/98
24. 184416 12/4/98
25. 184417 12/4/98
26. 13827 8/30/00
27. 13828 8/30/00
28. 13829 8/30/00
29. 13830 8/30/00
30. 13831 8/30/00
31. 13832 8/30/00
32. 18965 11/30/00
33. 19848 3/28/96
34. 20765 8/30/96
35. 20816 3/11/98
36. 19692 8/27/00
37. 19693 8/27/00
38. 19694 8/27/00
39. 19695 8/27/00
5/11/2019 40. 19696 8/27/00 A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
41. 19697 8/27/00
42. 19698 8/27/00
43. 19699 8/27/00
44. 19700 8/27/00
45. 19701 8/27/00
46. 19702 8/27/00
47. 19703 8/27/00
48. 19704 8/27/00
49. 19705 8/27/00
50. 19706 8/27/00
51. 19707 8/27/00
52. 23262 10/11/00
53. AR#035 12/9/00
54. 24994 8/17/00
55. 21097 12/13/00
56. 20660 12/20/00
57. 23111 11/27/00
58. 24407 7/27/00
59. 24408 7/27/00
60. 18435 3/21/00
61. 22858 8/4/00
62. 22976 5/4/99
Civil Case
1. 0171 7/10/00
Third Division
Case Number Date Submitted
1. SCA/005 12/18/00
2. A/R 016 8/5/99
3. A/R 029 10/2/00
4. 487 4/8/98
5. 488 4/8/98
6.489 4/8/98
7.490 4/8/98
8.491 4/8/98
9.11794 6/10/00
10.13861 4/6/00
11. 13862 4/6/00
12. 13863 4/6/00
13. 13889 3/25/99
14. 16756 8/25/99
15. 17532 12/11/00
16. 18867 10/5/00
17. 18868 10/5/00
18. 18869 10/5/00
19. 18870 10/5/00
20. 18871 10/5/00
21. 18872 10/5/00
22. 19182 4/6/00
23. 19563 4/6/00
24. 19574 4/6/00
25. 19622 4/6/00
26. 19623 4/6/00
27. 19624 4/6/00
5/11/2019 28. 20053 4/6/00 A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
29. 20054 4/6/00
30. 20271 12/18/00
31. 22143 12/18/00
32. 23014 9/23/00
33. 23522 7/6/00
34. 23699 3/22/00
35. 23700 3/22/00
36. 23701 3/22/00
37. 23802 9/10/00
38. 23803 9/10/00
39. 24153 12/18/00
40. 24697 9/10/00
41. 24698 9/10/00
42. 24741 12/7/00
43. 24779 10/28/00
44. 24780 10/28/00
45. 24781 10/28/00
46. 25657 5/5/00
Fourth Division
Case No. Date Submitted
1. 11960 09/21/98
2. 17664 01/29/98
3. 13036 02/22/99
4. 13037 02/22/99
5. 13593 05/21/96
6. 13594 05/21/96
7. 13757 03/21/97
8. 14380 02/14/95
9. 16809 03/26/00
10. 17015 06/06/94
11. 17016 06/06/94
12. 17140 06/13/96
13. 17141 06/13/96
14. 17209 12/27/96
15. 17805 02/15/00
16. 17806 02/15/00
17. 17809 02/15/00
18. 17856 04/02/00
19. 18005 05/07/96
20. 18006 05/07/96
21. 18257 09/22/97
22. 18894 11/17/00
23. 18895 11/17/00
24. 18896 11/17/00
25. 18900 10/28/00
26. 18935 06/16/00
27. 18936 06/16/00
28. 18937 06/16/00
29. 19567 05/21/96
30. 20338 05/19/97
31. 20469 07/07/00
32. 20470 07/07/00
33. 20471 07/07/00
34. 20472 07/07/00
5/11/2019 35. 20473 07/07/00 A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
36. 20474 07/07/00
37. 20475 07/07/00
38. 20476 07/07/00
39. 20664 06/29/96
40. 20685 02/18/00
41. 20828 09/13/00
42. 21093 08/07/99
43. 21131 08/04/96
44. 21778 09/29/97
45. 21779 09/29/97
46. 21780 09/29/97
47. 22891 03/02/00
48. 22892 03/02/00
49. 23007 05/24/99
50. 23058 04/27/00
51. 23059 04/27/00
52. 23060 04/27/00
53. 23061 04/27/00
54. 23062 04/27/00
55. 23366 03/28/99
56. 23415 05/25/00
57. 23534 12/15/00
58. 23708 09/27/00
59. 24447 09/18/00
60. 24448 09/18/00
61. 24464 07/26/00
62. 24465 07/26/00
63. 24742 10/10/00
64. 24841 03/22/00
65. 24842 03/22/00
66. 24851 10/29/00
67. 25198 05/31/00
68. 25389 09/26/00
69. 25543 12/27/00
70. 25658 07/28/00
Fifth Division
Criminal Cases
1. 14397 1/4/99
2. 16672 2/13/00
3. 17030 2/19/98
4. 17826 12/9/00
5. 17827 12/9/00
6. 18478 8/21/00
7. 18684 5/29/98
8. 18880 12/6/00
9. 19510 12/4/00
10. 19511 12/4/00
11. 19512 12/4/00
12. 19593 6/5/98
13. 19614 7/31/98
14. 19668 7/26/98
15. 20194 1/8/01
16. 20427 11/3/99
5/11/2019 17. 20648 1/4/98 A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
18. 20649 1/4/98
19. 20694 3/11/98
20. 21882 8/12/00
21. 22184 12/16/00
22. 22873 12/4/99
23. 22926 11/13/00
24. 23066 8/16/99
25. 23319 9/30/00
26. 23450 9/16/00
27. 23515 1/29/00
28. 24155 11/30/00
29. 24379 8/27/00
30. 24759 5/5/00
31. 24858 12/28/00
We find that Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena failed to devise an efficient recording and filing system to
enable him to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition. This is his duty on which
he failed.53
Memorandum of the Court Administrator
On November 14, 2001, the Court required the Office of the Court Administrator54 to update its report.55
On November 16, 2001, OCA Consultant Pedro A. Ramirez (Justice, Court of Appeals, Retired) submitted a
"compliance report" with the Court's order. The compliance report shows that to this day, several cases that were
reported pending by the Sandiganbayan on September 26, 2000, and likewise reported undecided by the OCA on
January 26, 2001, have not been decided/resolved. We quote the compliance report:56
First Division
Case Number Date Ponente Reason for Not
Submitted Assigned Deciding Case
194. 11999 12/10/90 Garchitorena Under study, submitted
before the
reorganization
195. 12102 7/1/91 Garchitorena Under study, submitted
before the
reorganization
196. 12127 2/12/90 Not reported; unaccounted for by
Sandiganbayan report
197. 12139 6/10/92 Castaneda* Under study submitted
before the
reorganization
198. 12289 8/28/91 Castaneda Under study submitted
before the
reorganization
199. 12305-06 2/7/91 Castaneda Under study submitted
before the
reorganization
200. 13015 3/2/92 Garchitorena Under study submitted
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/am_00-8-05-sc_2001.html before the 13/26
5/11/2019 reorganization
A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
213. 14223 3/7/97 Death of accused is unconfirmed and
dismissal of the case was held in
abeyance. (Ong, J.)*
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
before the
reorganization
5/11/2019 before
A. M. the
No. 00-8-05-SC
reorganization
before the
reorganization
232. 17001 9/4/97 Not yet assigned
233. 17278 5/2/94 Death of accused is unconfirmed and
dismissal of the case was held in
abeyance. (Ong, J.)
236. 17759 6/25/96 Ong Decided and set for
promulgation
239. 18857 10/21/98 Not yet assigned
240. 19059-63 2/11/99 Not yet assigned
241. 19534-35 9/2/98 Not yet assigned
243. 19773-79 5/21/99 Not yet assigned
247. 21020 7/4/95 Ong Set for Promulgation
on November 27, 2001
249. 22195-96 6/14/96 Castaneda Under study, submitted
before the
reorganization
250. 22832 10/21/98 Not yet assigned
252. 23146 11/13/00 Not yet assigned
257. 23374 12/17/98 Not yet assigned
258. 23418-23 10/15/99 Not yet assigned
261. 23540 10/15/99 Not yet assigned
262. 24042-98 4/28/99 Ong Set for Promulgation
on November 27, 2001
264. 24236-37 2/14/00 Not yet assigned
266. 24319-29 11/4/99 Not yet assigned
267.24319-29 11/4/99 Not reported; unaccounted for by
269.24395 7/13/99 Not reported; unaccounted for by
271. 24433-34 9/6/99 Not yet assigned
272. 24531-34 12/16/99 Not yet assigned
275. 6672 7/11/90 Garchitorena Under Study, before
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/am_00-8-05-sc_2001.html the reorganization 15/26
5/11/2019 276. 9977 5/10/94 Garchitorena A. M. No. Study,
Under 00-8-05-SC
before
the reorganization
Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to 9
Garchitorena, PJ.
Cases Assigned to Castaneda, 42
J.
Cases Assigned to Ong, J. 5
Cases not yet assigned 73
Cases not accounted for or 9
reported
Total 138
Second Division
63. 19542 4/16/99 For retaking of testimony due to
incomplete TSN
64. 13827-32 8/30/00 Victorino For promulgation
65. 18965 11/30/00 For retaking of testimony due to
incomplete TSN
Third Division
47. SCA/005 12/18/00 Ilarde --
48. A/R 029 10/2/00 Illarde
49. 487-491 4/8/98 With pending demurrer to evidence,
submitted, 01/26/01 re Submitted,
03/20/01
50. 11794 6/10/00 De Castro --
51. 17532 12/11/00 Ilarde --
52. 18867-72 10/5/00 Pending trial per order dated 08/17/00
53. 19182 4/6/00 Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97
54. 19563 4/6/00 No Assignment --
55. 19574 4/6/00 No Assignment --
56. 19622-24 4/6/00 Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97
57. 20053-54 4/6/00 Not with the 3rd Division
58. 20271 12/18/00 Illarde --
59. 22143 12/18/00 De Castro --
60. 23014 9/23/00 De Castro --
61. 23699-701 3/22/00 Ilarde --
62. 23802-03 9/10/00 No Assignment --
63. 24153 12/18/00 No Assignment --
64. 24697-98 9/10/00 Ilarde --
65. 24741 12/7/00 De Castro --
66. 24779-81 10/28/00 No Assignment --
67. 25657 5/5/00 With Defense pending motion for the re-
examination of the Information and the
parties' affidavits, etc. Order dated
08/31/01
Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Illarde, J. 9
Cases Assigned to De Castro, J. 4
Cases not yet assigned 8
5/11/2019 Others 18 A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
Total 39
Fourth Division**
71. 11960 09/21/98 Draft of decision penned by J. Nario in
view of the dissenting opinion of one
Justice was referred to a Division of five
(5) composed of Nario, Palattao, Ferrer,
Badoy, Jr. and De Castro, JJ.
72. 16809 03/26/00 Palattao --
73. 23058-62 04/27/00 Nario --
74. 25389 09/26/00 Nario --
Fifth Division
32. 14397 1/4/99 Badoy, Jr. Inherited case/lack of
personnel
personnel
personnel
35. 18478 8/21/00 Estrada Inherited case/lack of
personnel
personnel
personnel
38. 19510-12 12/4/00 Estrada Inherited case/lack of
personnel
personnel
personnel
41. 20194 1/8/01 Chico-Nazario Complicated Issues
personnel
43. 20648-49 1/4/98 Badoy, Jr. Inherited case/lack of
personnel
44. 20694 3/11/98 Estrada Inherited case/lack of
personnel
45. 22926 11/13/00 No report, Unaccounted for by the
46. 23066 8/16/99 Badoy, Jr. Not yet due
47. 24155 11/30/00 Estrada
48. 24379 8/27/00 Estrada Draft decision
released 7/31/01
Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Badoy, J. *** 11
Cases Assigned to Estrada, J. 7
Cases Assigned to Chico- 1
Nazario, J.
No report/Unaccounted For 1
Total 20
3. Applicability of SC Adm. Circular No. 10-94.-- Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the Sandiganbayan.
Administrative Circular 10-9457 directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases in their dockets. The
docket inventory procedure is as follows:58
"a. Every trial judge shall submit not later than the last week of February and the last week of August of each
year a tabulation of all pending cases which shall indicate on a horizontal column the following data:
"1. Title of the case

5/11/2019 "2. Date of Filing A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
"3. Date arraignment in criminal cases of Pre-trial in civil cases and
"4. Date of initial trial
"5. Date of last hearing
"6. Date submitted for Decision
"b. The tabulation shall end with a certification by the trial judge that he/she has personally undertaken an
inventory of the pending cases in his/her court; that he/she has examined each case record and initialled the
last page thereof. The judge shall indicate in his/her certification the date when inventory was conducted.
"c. The Tabulation and Certification shall be in the following form.
Docket Inventory for the Period
January __ to June ___, ___/July
To December ___, ___
(Indicate Period)
Court and Station ________
Presiding Judge ________
Date of Date
Title of Date Initial
Pretrial/Arraignment Last submitted for
Case Filed Hearing
Hearing Decision
"CERTIFICATION:
"I hereby certify that on (Date/Dates___), I personally conducted a physical inventory of pending cases in the
docket of this court, that I personally examined the records of each case and initialled the last page thereof,
and I certify that the results of the inventory are correctly reflected in the above tabulation.
_________. _____________________
Presiding Judge"
Given the rationale behind the Administrative Circular, we hold that it is applicable to the Sandiganbayan with
respect to cases within its original and appellate jurisdiction.
Mora Decidendi
We reiterate the admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000:59
"This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) to decide cases promptly and
expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Decision making is the primordial and
most important duty of the member of the bench.60 Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch.
Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency61 that warrants disciplinary sanction, including fine,62
suspension63 and even dismissal.64 The rule particularly applies to justices of the Sandiganbayan. Delays in
the disposition of cases erode the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and
bring it into disrepute.65 Delays cannot be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the anti-graft court, the
showcase of the nation's determination to succeed in its war against graft (italics ours)."
In Yuchengco v. Republic,66 we urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer justice. We stated that the
Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to amend and control its processes and orders to make them conformable
to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan as the nation's anti-graft court must be the first to avert opportunities for
graft, uphold the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases and avert the precipitate loss of their
rights.
Practice of Unloading Cases
According to the memorandum submitted by the OCA, there is a practice in the first and third divisions of the
Sandiganbayan of unloading cases to other divisions despite the fact that these cases have been submitted for
decision before them. We cite relevant portions of the memorandum:67
Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fourth Division
Division Date
where Submitted
Case No. Title of the Case
case for
originated Decision
1) 17015 PP vs. Raul Zapatos 3rd 06/06/94
2) 17016 PP vs. Raul Zapatos 3rd 06/06/94
3) 14380 PP vs. Francisco Ramoran 3rd 02/14/95
4) 18005 PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac 3rd 05/07/96
5/11/2019 5) 18006 PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac A. M.3rd 05/07/96
No. 00-8-05-SC
6) 13593 PP vs. Dominador Meninguito 3rd 05/30/96
9) 17140 PP vs. Jose Café, et. al. 3rd 06/13/96
10) 17141 PP vs. Jose Café, et. al. 3rd 06/13/96
11) 20064 PP vs. Ben dela Pena 3rd 07/01/96
12) 21131 PP vs. Rufino Mamanguin 3rd 08/05/96
13) 17209 PP vs. Isidro Catapang 3rd 12/27/96
14) 13757 PP vs. Catalino Daganzo 3rd 03/21/97
15) 18257 PP vs. Zenaida Sazon 1st 09/22/97
Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fifth Division

1. 10264 12/22/90
2. 13344 5/14/97
3. 16223 4/25/94
4. 16574 5/30/95
5. 16760 5/25/95
6. 16810 1/23/96
7. 17018 7/20/94
8. 17055 7/5/95
9. 17139 4/24/94
10. 17162 2/23/95
11. 17193 3/8/94
12. 17426 2/12/94
13. 17480 3/22/94
14. 17538 11/20/95
15. 17567 2/24/93
16. 17598 8/3/94
17. 17617 3/28/96
18. 17618 4/6/95
19. 17619 4/6/95
20. 17640 6/12/95
21. 17661 12/15/94
22. 17666 8/25/97
23. 17884 11/12/95
24. 17902 4/16/95
25. 18008 9/15/97
26. 18423 1/15/96
27. 18687 9/30/94
28. 18759 10/12/95
29. 18785 7/13/95
30. 18932 4/20/97
31. 18988 10/25/95
32. 18999 12/21/95
33. 19039 5/6/95
34. 19378 4/17/96
35. 19379 4/17/96
36. 19679 10/5/95
37. 19712 2/18/95
38. 19907 6/22/95
39. 20487 12/14/96
40. 20624 7/15/95
41. 23427 7/25/97
5/11/2019 We suggest a review of the practice of unloading cases A.
that
M.greatly contributes to the backlog of undecided cases.
No. 00-8-05-SC
When a case has been heard and tried before a division of the Sandiganbayan, it is ideal that the same division and
no other must decide it as far as practicable.
We further note that several cases which were earlier reported as undecided by the Sandiganbayan and the OCA
have been decided since the reports of September 26, 2000 and January 26, 2001. Nonetheless, the delay in
deciding these cases is patent and merits reprobation. According to the compliance report submitted by the OCA on
November 16, 2001, there are several cases decided way beyond the reglementary period prescribed by law, even
assuming without granting, a reglementary period of twelve months from the time a case is submitted for decision.68
In a case brought before this Court, Presiding Justice Garchitorena admitted fault and that the fault is exclusively his
own, in failing to decide the case, though submitted for decision as early as June 20, 1990.69 This case was not
even included among pending cases in the Sandiganbayan report of September 26, 2000.
The following cases were decided, though beyond the prescribed period:
First Division
Submitted for Date of
Case Number Ponente
Decision Promulgation
November 10,
14195 March 31, 1997 Ong
2000
November 15,
21608 March 31, 1997 Ong
2000
20588 February 14, 1998 January 12, 2001 Ong
19651 November 15, 1996 January 26, 2001 Ong
17670 November 25, 1994 January 26, 2001 Ong
17447-48 September 6, 1994 February 22, 2001 Ong
18283 February 21, 1995 February 23, 2001 Ong
17514 August 19, 1994 April 24, 2001 Ong
Second Division
Case Number Ponente
18403-18417 December 4, 1998 February 2, 2001 Victorino
18435 August 11, 2000 March 26, 2001 Victorino
18786 November 28, 2000 March 28, 2001 Legaspi
19004 September 10, 1996 March 16, 2001 Victorino
19692-19707 August 27, 2000 February 26, 2001 Sandoval
19848 March 28, 1996 January 29, 2001 Victorino
20483-20484 July 26, 1995 April 6, 2001 Victorino
20660 December 20, 2000 August 2, 2001 Legaspi
20765 August 30, 1996 February 23, 2001 Victorino
20816 March 11, 1998 January 25, 2001 Victorino
21097 December 13, 2000 June 15, 2001 Victorino
22858 August 11, 2000 January 31, 2001 Victorino
22934 October 14, 2000 February 15, 2001 Sandoval
22976 May 4, 1999 March 1, 2001 Sandoval
23111 November 27, 2000 March 14, 2001 Sandoval
23262 October 11, 2000 May 16, 2001 Victorino
December 14,
23338 December 2, 1999 Sandoval
2000
23529-23530 October 23, 2000 March 28, 2001 Victorino
24407-24408 August 11, 2000 January 24, 2001 Legaspi
24994 August 17, 2000 May 30, 2001 Sandoval
AR#035 December 9, 2000 August 28, 2001 Legaspi
Third Division
Case Number Ponente
A/R 016 November 16, 1999 January 26, 2001 Ilarde
December 22,
13861-13863 April 6, 2000 Del Rosario
2000
13889 September 30, 1999 May 10, 2001 Ilarde
16756 August 28, 1999 December 11, Del Rosario
5/11/2019 A. M. 2000
No. 00-8-05-SC
23522 July 6, 2000 January 12, 2001 Del Rosario
Fourth Division
Case Number Ponente
17664 August 31, 1999 June 1, 2000 Pallatao
17016 June 6, 1994 March 27, 2001 Ferrer
17140-41 June 13, 1996 February 6, 2001 Nario
17209 December 27, 1996 April 30, 2001 Ferrer
17805-09;
February 15, 2000 October 10, 2001 Palattao
17814
17856 April 2, 2000 June 25, 2001 Palattao
18005-06 May 7, 1996 May 18, 2001 Ferrer
18257 September 22, 1997 July 26, 2001 Ferrer
18894-96 November 17, 2000 March 20, 2001 Palattao
18900 October 28, 2000 March 23, 2001 Ferrer
18935-37 June 16, 2000 January 18, 2001 Palattao
19567 May 21, 1996 January 15, 2001 Ferrer
20338 May 19, 1997 February 9, 2001 Ferrer
20469 July 7, 2000 June 25, 2001 Palattao
13036-37 February 22, 1999 February 28, 2001 Ferrer
13593-94 May 21, 1996 January 15, 2001 Ferrer
20470-76 July 7, 2000 June 25, 2001 Palattao
20664 June 29, 1996 February 20, 2001 Ferrer
20685 February 18, 2000 March 2, 2001 Palattao
20828 September 13, 2000 October 8, 2001 Palattao
21093 August 7, 1999 January 15, 2001 Palattao
21131 August 4, 1996 February 13, 2001 Ferrer
21778-80 September 29, 1997 June 21, 2001 Ferrer
December 13,
22891-92 March 2, 2000 Ferrer
2000
23007 May 24, 1999 March 14, 2000 Ferrer
13757 March 21, 1997 July 2, 2001 Ferrer
14380 February 14, 1995 April 23, 2001 Ferrer
17015 June 6, 1994 March 27, 2001 Ferrer
23366 November 26, 1999 October 29, 2001 Ferrer
23415 May 25, 2000 May 28, 2001 Palattao
23534 December 15, 2000 February 28, 2001 Palattao
September 10,
23708 September 27, 2000 Nario
2001
24464-65 July 26, 2000 June 26, 2001 Nario
24742 October 10, 2000 March 22, 2001 Ferrer
24841-42 May 9, 2000 March 7, 2001 Ferrer
25198 July 12, 2000 February 6, 2001 Nario
25543 December 27, 2000 February 26, 2001 Palattao
25658 July 28, 2000 July 20, 2001 Palattao
24447-48 September 18, 2000 December 7, 2001 Palattao
Fifth Division
Case Submitted for Date of
Ponente
Number Decision Promulgation
17826-17827 December 9, 2000 March 28, 2001 Chico-Nazario
19668 July 26, 1998 February 9, 2001 Badoy, Jr.
21882 August 12, 2000 July 25, 2001 Chico- Nazario
22184 December 16, 2000 May 21, 2001 Chico- Nazario
22873 December 4, 1999 May 31, 2001 Chico- Nazario
23319 September 30, 2000 April 23, 2001 Chico- Nazario
5/11/2019 23450 September 16, 2000 March 16,
A. 2001
M. No.Chico- Nazario
00-8-05-SC
Cortez-
23515 January 29, 2000 May 28, 2001
Estrada
Cortez-
24759 May 5, 2000 July 10, 2001
Estrada
24858 December 28, 2000 May 31, 2001 Chico-Nazario
Relief of Presiding Justice
At this juncture, the Court cites the case of Canson v. Garchitorena.70 In that case, we admonished respondent
Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena. General Jewel F. Canson, Police Chief Superintendent, National Capital
Region Command Director, complained of deliberate delayed action of the Presiding Justice on the transfer of
Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, depriving complainant of his right to a
just and speedy trial. Due to a finding of lack of bad faith on the part of respondent justice, we issued only a warning.
However, the dispositive portion of the decision cautioned respondent justice that "a repetition of the same or similar
act in the future shall be dealt with more severely."71
Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena sits as the Chairman, First Division, with a backlog of cases pending
decision. At least seventy-three cases have been unassigned for the writing of the extended opinion, though
submitted for decision. It may be the thinking of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan that an unassigned case is
not counted in its backlog of undecided cases. This is not correct. It is the duty of the Presiding Justice and the
Chairmen of divisions to assign the ponente as soon as the case is declared submitted for decision, if not earlier. If
he fails to make the assignment, he shall be deemed to be the ponente.
The Constitution provides that a case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.72 In Administrative Circular No.
28, dated July 3, 1989, the Supreme Court provided that "A case is considered submitted for decision upon the
admission of the evidence of the parties at the termination of the trial. The ninety (90) days period for deciding the
case shall commence to run from submission of the case for decision without memoranda; in case the court requires
or allows its filing, the case shall be considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the
expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid
reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case was previously heard by another
judge not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall have the full period of ninety (90) days from the
completion of the transcripts within which to decide the same."73 The designation of a ponente to a case is not a
difficult administrative task.
Administrative sanctions must be imposed. "Mora reprobatur in lege."74 Again, we reiterate the principle that
decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities.75 In this area, Presiding Justice
Francis E. Garchitorena, as the ponente assigned to the cases submitted for decision/resolution long ago, some as
far back as more than ten (10) years ago, has been remiss constituting gross neglect of duty and inefficiency.76 As
we said in Canson,77 unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a case amounts to a denial of justice, bringing the
Sandiganbayan into disrepute, eroding the public faith and confidence in the judiciary.78
Consequently, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena should be relieved of all trial and administrative work as
Presiding Justice and as Chairman, First Division so that he can devote himself full time to decision-making until his
backlog is cleared. He shall finish this assignment not later than six (6) months from the promulgation of this
resolution.
We have, in cases where trial court judges failed to decide even a single case within the ninety (90) day period,
imposed a fine ranging from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to the equivalent of their one month's salary.79
According to the report of the Sandiganbayan, as of September 26, 2000, there were three hundred forty one (341)
cases submitted for decision before its first division headed by the Presiding Justice. In the memorandum of the
OCA, there were one hundred ninety eight (198) cases reported submitted for decision before the First Division.80
Even in the updated report, there are one hundred thirty eight (138) cases still undecided in the First Division.
In fact, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that he has a backlog.81 He claimed that one (1) case
alone comprises fifty percent (50%) of the backlog. We find this claim exaggerated. We cannot accept that a
backlog of three hundred forty one (341) cases in the First Division could be eliminated by the resolution of a single
consolidated case of one hundred fifty six (156) counts. A consolidated case is considered only as one case. The
cases referred to were consolidated as Criminal Case Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, decided
on December 8, 2000. What about the one hundred eighty five (185) cases that unfortunately remained undecided
to this date? Worse, the motion for reconsideration of the decision in said cases, submitted as of January 11, 2001,
has not been resolved to this date.82 The First Division has only thirty (30) days from submission to resolve the
same. It is now ten (10) months from submission. The expediente and the motion were transmitted to the ponente,
Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, on that date, but to this day the case remains unresolved.83
Unfortunately, even other divisions of the Sandiganbayan may be following his example.84
In the first report of the Court Administrator, he indicated a total of one hundred ninety five (195) criminal cases and
three (3) civil cases, or a total of one hundred ninety eight (198) cases submitted for decision as of December 21,
2000.85 Almost a year later, as of November 16, 2001, there are still one hundred thirty eight (138) cases undecided
submitted long ago. For almost one year, not one case was decided/resolved by the Presiding Justice himself.86
Directive
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves:
(1) To IMPOSE on Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena a fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00),
for inefficiency and gross neglect of duty.
5/11/2019 (2) Effective December 1, 2001, to RELIEVE Presiding
A. M. No. Justice Francis E. Garchitorena of his powers,
00-8-05-SC
functions and duties as the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, and from presiding over the trial of cases as a
justice and Chairman, First Division, so that he may DEVOTE himself exclusively to DECISION WRITING,
until the backlog of cases assigned to him as well as cases not assigned to any ponente, of which he shall be
deemed the ponente in the First Division, are finally decided. There shall be no unloading of cases to other
divisions, or to the First Division inter se.
In the interim, Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, as the most senior associate justice, shall TAKE
OVER and exercise the powers, functions, and duties of the office of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan,
until further orders from this Court.
(3) To DIRECT Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and the associate justices of the Sandiganbayan to
decide/resolve the undecided cases submitted for decision as of this date, within three (3) months from their
submission, and to resolve motions for new trial or reconsiderations and petitions for review within thirty (30)
days from their submission. With respect to the backlog of cases, as hereinabove enumerated, the
Sandiganbayan shall decide/resolve all pending cases including incidents therein within six (6) months from
notice of this resolution.
(4) To ORDER the Sandiganbayan to comply with Supreme Court Administrative Circular 10-94, effective
immediately.
(5) To DIRECT the Sandiganbayan en banc to adopt not later than December 31, 2001 internal rules to
govern the allotment of cases among the divisions, the rotation of justices among them and other matters
leading to the internal operation of the court, and thereafter to submit the said internal rules to the Supreme
Court for its approval.87
This directive is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Buena, J., on official leave.
De Leon, Jr., J., see dissenting and concurring opinion.
Separate Opinions
DE LEON, Jr., J.: concurring and dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the resolution of Mr. Justice Bernardo P. Pardo insofar as it declares and rules that the
judgment of any division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months, and not within twelve (12)
months, from the date the case was submitted for decision.
The resolution cites Section 6 of P.D. No. 1606 which requires that the judgment of the Sandiganbayan "shall be
rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision". The said provision was
apparently adopted by the Sandiganbayan in Section 3 of Rule XVIII of its Revised Rules of Procedure which was
issued pursuant to P.D. No. 1606. The resolution also cites Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94, dated
June 25, 1994 which is addressed "To: All Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Courts, Branch Clerks of Courts" but not
to Sandiganbayan Justices or the Clerk of Court and Division Clerks of Courts of the Sandiganbayan.
SECTION 15 (1) and (2) Article VII of the 1997 Constitution, however, provides that:
SECTION 15(1). All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved
within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the Court itself.
xxx xxx xxx
The Supreme Court in Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not reduced the 12-month period mentioned in the
above quoted constitutional provision insofar as the Sandiganbayan, a collegiate court, is concerned. It is basic that
in case of conflict between a constitutional provision on one hand and a statute or an internal rule of procedure of a
court on the other, the former, being a part of the fundamental law of the land, must prevail. Also, pursuant to
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8245 (approved on February 5, 1997) the Sandiganbayan has also exclusive
appellate jurisdiction "over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the regional trial courts whether in the exercise
of their original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided."
In this connection, be it noted that section 1 of R.A. No. 8249 further amending P.D. No. 1606, as amended,
provides that:
SECTION 1. Sandiganbayan; Composition; Qualifications; Tenure; Removal and Compensation — A special

court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice,
to be known as the Sandiganbayan is hereby created composed of a presiding justice and fourteen associate
justices who shall be appointed by the President.
Incidentally, per the Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan, each division is composed of three (3) justices
whose unanimous vote is required to render a decision, resolution or order. In the event there is a dissent, a special
division is formed whereby two (2) justices who shall be chosen by raffle and added to the division concerned, in
which event, the majority rule shall prevail. For that reason and considering also that appeals from the decisions of
the Sandiganbayan are to be filed directly with the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan as a collegiate trial court, is
significantly different from the one-man regional trial court.
5/11/2019 Subject to the foregoing observations and partial dissent,A.I concur
M. No. with the rest of the resolution.
00-8-05-SC
Footnotes
1 Dated July 29, 2000, done in Los Baños, Laguna. Signed by Arthur D. Lim (National President), and the
following Governors: Carmencito P. Caingat (Central Luzon), Jose P. Icaonapo, Jr. (Greater Manila), Teresita
Infatado-Gines (Southern Luzon), Serafin P. Rivera (Bicolandia), Celestino B. Sabate (Eastern Visayas),
David A. Ponce de Leon (Western Visayas), Paulino R. Ersando (Western Mindanao). The following did not
take any part in the Resolution: Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (Executive Vice President) was on study leave, and
Nicanor A. Magno (Governor for Eastern Mindanao) was on sick leave.
2 Rollo, p. 2.
3 Rollo, pp. 3-4.
4 Rollo, p. 5.
5 Dated September 26, 2000, Rollo, pp. 6-18.
6 Rollo, p. 6.
7 As of September 15, 2000, Rollo, pp. 17-18.
8 Resolution of the Court En Banc dated October 10, 2000, Rollo, pp. 19-20.
9 Rollo, pp. 30-43.
10 Article VIII, Section 15 (1), Constitution.
11 Reply, Rollo, pp. 45-46.
12 Rollo, p. 52.
13 First Division composed of Francis E. Garchitorena (Presiding Justice and Chairman); Catalino R.
Castañeda, Jr. (Associate Justice) and Gregory S. Ong (Associate Justice).
14 Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, involving 156 cases.
15 Rollo, p. 56.
16 Rollo, pp. 61-101. The memorandum was a report on the judicial audit and physical inventory of pending
cases before the five (5) Divisions of the Sandiganbayan conducted by the Court Administrator's Judicial
Audit Team. The team was composed of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, together with Consultants
Narciso T. Atienza, Conrado M. Molina, Romulo S. Quimbo, Pedro A. Ramirez, and staff. The report was
prepared from December 11 to 19, 2000.
17 Rollo, pp. 61-104, at p. 100.
18 Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 145851, November 22, 2001.
19 Memorandum to Chief Justice Davide dated January 26, 2001, Rollo, pp. 61-101, at p. 101.
20 Pursuant to Section 15 (1) Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.
21 Section 6, P.D. No. 1606, as amended; Section 3, Rule XVIII of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan.
22 Cited in Montes v. Bugtas, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1627, April 17, 2001.
23 See 2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court, pp. 7-8.
24 R.A. No. 8249 (An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan) classifies the
Sandiganbayan as "[A] special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the
inherent powers of a court of justice … x x x (Section 1)."
25 R. A. No. 8249, Section 2, empowers the Sandiganbayan to "hold sessions x x x for the trial and
determination of cases filed with it."
26 R. A. No. 8249, Section 1.
27 P.D. No. 1606, Section 9, as amended.
28 R.A. No. 7975, Section 4, except to adopt internal rules governing the allotment of cases among the
divisions, the rotation of justices among them and other matters relating to the internal operations of the court
which shall be enforced until repealed or modified by the Supreme Court.
29 Ibid.
30 Supra, Note 23, at p. 8.
31 Enumerated under Section 4 of R. A. No. 8249

5/11/2019 32 Under R.A. No. 8249, Section 4, "The Sandiganbayan
A. M. No.shall
00-8-05-SC
exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original
jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided."
33 Memorandum of the Office of the Court Administrator, Rollo, pp. 137-147, at p. 147.
34 Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486, creating a special court to be known as the "Sandiganbayan."
35 R.A. No. 8249 is silent on this matter. Amendments are to be construed as if they are included in the
original act (Camacho v. CIR, 80 Phil. 848 [1948]).
36 P.D. No. 1606, Section 9, provides, "The Sandiganbayan shall have the power to promulgate its own rules
of procedure and, pending such promulgation, the Rules of Court shall govern its proceedings." However,
R.A. No. 7975, Sec. 4, repealed this provision, approved March 30, 1995, effective May 6, 1995.
37 Rule XVIII, Section 3, The Sandiganbayan, Revised Rules of Procedure.
38 R.A. No. 7975, Section 1.
39 Cariño v. Ofilada, 217 SCRA 206 (1993).
40 Dacumos v. Sandiganbayan, 195 SCRA 833 (1991), discussing the power of a trial court.
41 334 Phil. 369, 386 (1997).
42 329 Phil. 300, 309-310 (1996).
43 All pending before the Sandiganbayan's First Division, of which Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena
is the Chairman.
44 Compliance, Rollo, pp. 7-18.
* Second Division composed of Edilberto G. Sandoval (Associate Justice and Chairman); Godofredo L.
Legaspi (Associate Justice) and Raul V. Victorino (Associate Justice).
** Third Division composed of Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. (Associate Justice and Chairman); Teresita Leonardo-
De Castro (Associate Justice) and Ricardo M. Ilarde (Associate Justice, Retired November 27, 2001).
*** Fourth Division composed of Narciso S. Nario (Associate Justice and Chairman); Rodolfo G. Palattao
(Associate Justice) and Nicodemo T. Ferrer (Associate Justice).
**** Fifth Division composed of Minita V. Chico-Nazario (Associate Justice and Chairman); Ma. Cristina G.
Cortez-Estrada (Associate Justice) and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. (Associate Justice).
45 2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Annex "H", p. 258.
46 Dealing with a single delay in the municipal circuit trial court, Re: report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in
the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dingle-Duenas, Iloilo, 345 Phil. 884 (1997).
47 See Comment of Presiding Justice, G. R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan.
48 Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, involving 156 cases.
49 Rollo, p. 56.
50 See Semestral Inventory of Pending Cases, for the period January to July, 2001, Sandiganbayan, First
Division, dated August 24, 2001, submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator by Estella Teresita C.
Rosete, Executive Clerk of Court, First Division, Sandiganbayan.
51 As of December 21, 2000.
52 Memorandum for Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 61-104.
53 Cf. Re: Request of Judge Masamayor, RTC-Br. 52, Talibon, Bohol, For Extension of Time to Decide Civil
Case No. 0020 and Criminal Case No. 98-384, 316 SCRA 219 (1999); Bernardo v. Fabros, 366 Phil. 485
(1999).
54 In a Memorandum signed by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. addressed to Justice (Ret.) Pedro A.
Ramirez, OCA Consultant.
55 Rollo, pp. 489-498.
56 Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 342-348
* Justice Catalino R. Castaneda, Jr. joined the Sandiganbayan on September 24, 1997.
* Justice Gregory S. Ong was appointed to the Sandiganbayan on October 5, 1998.
** The Fourth and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan were created only on September 25, 1997.
*** The case assignments of Justice Badoy, Jr. were all transferred to Justice Villaruz when Justice Badoy, Jr.
transferred to the Third Division. The report of the Sandiganbayan with respect case assignments is dated
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/am_00-8-05-sc_2001.html
September 30, 2001 (See Annex "E"). 25/26
5/11/2019 57 Dated June 29, 1994. A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC
58 A(2) a.-c., Administrative Circular 10-94.
59 Resolution of the Court En Banc, Rollo, pp. 19-21, at p. 20.
60 Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).
61 Cueva v. Villanueva, 365 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).
62 Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC, Br. 27, Lapu-Lapu City, 352 Phil. 223, 232 (1998); Sta. Ana v. Arinday,
Jr., 347 Phil. 671, 674 (1997).
63 Bolalin v. Occiano, 334 Phil. 178 (1997).
64 Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, 354 Phil. 8 (1998);
Abarquez v. Rebosura, 349 Phil. 24, 38 (1998); Longboan v. Hon. Polig, 186 SCRA 557 (1990).
65 Sta. Ana v. Arinday, Jr., supra, Note 62.
66 333 SCRA 368, 387 (2000).
67 Memorandum to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 61-104, at pp. 88, 93.
68 Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 349-353.
69 G. R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, filed on November 23, 2000.
70 370 Phil. 287 (1999).
71 Supra, at p. 288.
72 Article VIII, Sec. 15 (2), Constitution.
73 Supreme Court Circulars, Orders and Resolutions, October 1999 ed., pp. 144-145.
74 Delay is reprobated in law (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1951, West Publishing Co., p. 1160.
75 Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).
76 Sabado v. Cajigal, 219 SCRA 800 (1993); Casia v. Gestopa, Jr., 371 Phil. 131 (1999); Report on the
Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Brs. 29, 56 and 57, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, 316 SCRA 272 (1999); Re:
Cases Left Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag, Jr., 365 Phil. 492 (1999); Re: report on the Judicial
Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 68, Camiling, Tarlac, 364 Phil. 530 (1999); Bernardo v. Fabros, 366 Phil. 485
(1999); Louis Viutton S. A. v. Villanueva, 216 SCRA 121 (1992); Imposed in a case where there was failure to
decide a case despite the lapse of years from its submission (Lambino v. de Vera, 341 Phil. 62, 67 (1997).
77 Supra, Note 61, at p. 303-304.
78 Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dingle-Duenas, Iloilo, 345 Phil.
884 (1997).
79 Supra, Note 78.
80 As of December 21, 2000.
81 Supra, Note 14, Rollo, p. 56.
82 As of November 16, 2001. See Compliance Report, dated November 16, 2001, of Justice Ramirez.
83 Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at p. 354.
84 According to the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division Clerk of Court, a motion for reconsideration in the case of
People v. Bienvenido Tan (Crim. Case No. 20685) submitted on May 4, 2001, has also remained unresolved.
Another instance of violation of the thirty day reglementary period for resolving motions for reconsideration.
85 Supra, pp. 17-18 of this resolution.
86 On December 08, 2000, Presiding Justice Garchitorena decided a single consolidated case of 156
components, Crim. Cases Nos. 9812 to 9967, for estafa through falsification of public documents.
87 R. A. No. 7975, Section 4.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC Delays in The Sandiganbayan 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC Delays in The Sandiganbayan 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/11/2019 A. M. No.

A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC November 28, 2001

RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

"Done in Los Baños, Laguna, this 29th day of July, 2000."

The Court's Ruling

We resolve the issues presented in seriatim.

Compliance with its Own Rules

Memorandum of the Court Administrator

"1. Title of the case

"3. Date arraignment in criminal cases of Pre-trial in civil cases and

"4. Date of initial trial

"5. Date of last hearing

"6. Date submitted for Decision

"c. The Tabulation and Certification shall be in the following form.

Docket Inventory for the Period

January __ to June ___, ___/July

To December ___, ___

Court and Station ________

Presiding Judge ________

We reiterate the admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000:59

Practice of Unloading Cases

Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fourth Division

Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fifth Division

Case Number Date Submitted

Relief of Presiding Justice

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves:

This directive is immediately executory.

DE LEON, Jr., J.: concurring and dissenting

xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 1. Sandiganbayan; Composition; Qualifications; Tenure; Removal and Compensation — A special

3 Rollo, pp. 3-4.

5 Dated September 26, 2000, Rollo, pp. 6-18.

7 As of September 15, 2000, Rollo, pp. 17-18.

9 Rollo, pp. 30-43.

10 Article VIII, Section 15 (1), Constitution.

11 Reply, Rollo, pp. 45-46.

18 Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 145851, November 22, 2001.

20 Pursuant to Section 15 (1) Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.

22 Cited in Montes v. Bugtas, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1627, April 17, 2001.

23 See 2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court, pp. 7-8.

27 P.D. No. 1606, Section 9, as amended.

30 Supra, Note 23, at p. 8.

31 Enumerated under Section 4 of R. A. No. 8249

38 R.A. No. 7975, Section 1.

39 Cariño v. Ofilada, 217 SCRA 206 (1993).

41 334 Phil. 369, 386 (1997).

42 329 Phil. 300, 309-310 (1996).

44 Compliance, Rollo, pp. 7-18.

47 See Comment of Presiding Justice, G. R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan.

51 As of December 21, 2000.

56 Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 342-348

* Justice Gregory S. Ong was appointed to the Sandiganbayan on October 5, 1998.

58 A(2) a.-c., Administrative Circular 10-94.

59 Resolution of the Court En Banc, Rollo, pp. 19-21, at p. 20.

60 Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).

61 Cueva v. Villanueva, 365 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).

63 Bolalin v. Occiano, 334 Phil. 178 (1997).

65 Sta. Ana v. Arinday, Jr., supra, Note 62.

66 333 SCRA 368, 387 (2000).

68 Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 349-353.

69 G. R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, filed on November 23, 2000.

70 370 Phil. 287 (1999).

72 Article VIII, Sec. 15 (2), Constitution.

January to June _, ___/July

To December _, _