658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

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

RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE

SANDIGANBAYAN

Administrative Law; Judges; There are two views within what 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

_______________

* EN BANC.

659

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 659

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

has twelve (12) months to decide or resolve it. The second view is that as a
court with trial function, the Sandiganbayan has three (3) months to decide
the case from the date of submission for decision.
Same; Same; Article VIII, Section 15(1) and (2) of the 1987
Constitution does not apply to the Sandiganbayan for the said court is not a
regular court but a special one; Special courts are judicial tribunals
exercising limited jurisdiction over particular or specialized categories of
actions.—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. 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, with functions of a trial court.
Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one. The
Sandiganbayan was originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of
procedure. However, on March 30, 1995, Congress repealed the
Sandiganbayan’s power to promulgate its own rules of procedure and
instead prescribed that the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme
Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan.
“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.”
Same; Same; The three (3) month period, not the twelve month period,
to decide cases applies to the Sandiganbayan.—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,
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. 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.
Same; Same; Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the
Sandiganbayan.—Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the
Sandiganbayan. Administrative Circular 10-94 directs all trial judges to
make a physical inventory of the cases in their dockets.
Same; Same; Court urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer
justice.—In Yuchengco v. Republic, we urged the Sandiganbayan to
promptly administer justice. We stated that the Sandiganbayan has the

660

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

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.
Same; Same; 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.—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. 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.” The designation of a
ponente to a case is not a difficult administrative task.
Same; Same; 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.—Administrative
sanctions must be imposed. “Mora reprobatur in lege.” Again, we reiterate
the principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial
functions and responsibilities. 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. As
we said in Canson, 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.

661

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 661

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

DE LEON, J., Concurring and Dissenting opinion:

Administrative Law; Judges; 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.—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.”
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Delays in
Resolving Cases at Sandiganbayan.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

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.
1
Lim, transmitted to the Court a Resolution addressing the

_______________

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

662

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

problem of delays in cases pending before the Sandiganbayan

2 3
(hereafter, the Resolution). We quote the Resolution in full:

“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:

_______________

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.

663

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 663

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

“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
4
the
dates they were deemed submitted for decision or resolution.
On September 27, 2000, complying with the order, Presiding
5
Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a report (hereafter, the
compliance) admitting a number of cases submitted for decision and
motion for reconsideration pending resolution before its divisions.
We quote:

  “Cases Submitted W/ Motions For

“For Decision Reconsideration
“1st Division 341 None
“2nd Division 5 None
“3rd Division 12 None
“4th Division 5 None
“5th Division 52 1
6
“Total 415”  

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

_______________

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

664

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

7
May 24, 1990, and motion for reconsideration 8
which has remained
unresolved over thirty days from submission.
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,
9
of which there are (were) none.”
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
10
reports required of Regional Trial Courts. Fourth, the Constitution
states 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
11
from date of submission. 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
12
2000.”
On December 4, 2000, in a letter addressed to the Chief Justice,
Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that the First

_______________

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.

665

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 665

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

13
Division of the Sandiganbayan has a backlog of cases; that one
14
case 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
15
at least fifty percent (50%).
On January 26, 2001, the Court Administrator submitted a
16
memorandum to the Court stating that the causes of delay in the
17
disposition of cases before the Sandiganbayan are:

(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 pend-

_______________

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.

666

666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

ing 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
18
substance and meaning to his constitutional right to speedy trial.

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 aforestated reglementary period? (3) Is
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1094 applicable to the
19
Sandiganbayan?

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
20
resolve it. The second view is that as a court with trial function, the
Sandiganbayan has three (3)21
months to decide the case from the date
of submission for decision.

_______________

18 Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 145851, November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA
394.
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.

667

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 667

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

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
22
required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.”

The above provision does not apply to the Sandiganbayan. The

provision refers to regular courts of lower collegiate level that in the
23
present hierarchy applies only to the Court of Appeals.
 The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the
Court of Appeals
24
and possessing all the 25 inherent powers of a court
of justice, with functions of a trial court.
Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special
26
one. The Sandiganbayan 27was originally empowered to promulgate
its own rules of procedure. However, on March 30, 1995, Congress
repealed the Sandiganbayan’s power to promulgate its own rules of
28
procedure and instead prescribed that the Rules of Court promul-

_______________

22 Cited in Montes v. Bugtas, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1627, April 17, 2001, 356 SCRA
539.
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.

668

668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

gated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings
29
filed with the Sandiganbayan.
“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
30
Courts.”
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
31
jurisdiction, and cases which fall within the appellate jurisdiction
32
of the Sandiganbayan. 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
33
 33
the twelve-month reglementary period for collegiate courts. We do
not agree.
34
The law35
creating the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 1606 is clear on
this issue. 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.”

_______________

29 Ibid.
30 Supra, Note 23, at p. 8.
31 Enumerated under Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249.
32 Under R.A. No. 8249, Section 4, “The Sandiganbayan shall 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]).

669

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 669

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its own

36 37
rules, thus:

“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
38
Sandiganbayan presently sitting in five (5) divisions, functions as a
trial court. The term “trial” is used in its broad sense, meaning, it
39
allows introduction of evidence by the parties in the cases before it.
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
40
which they consider perjurious or fabricated.
Compliance with its Own Rules

In Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) v.

41
Court of Appeals, 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.

_______________

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; 266 SCRA 404 (1997).

670

670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

42
Similarly, in Cabagnot v. Comelec, 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)
43
years ago. As of September 15, 2000, the following cases had not
44
been decided:

First Division

Case Title Case No. Date Submitted

for
(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, 12305- February 7, 1991
Jr. 12306
(6) People v. Melquiades Ribo 13521 May 7, 1991
(7) People v. Carlos Benitez 12102 June 19, 1991

_______________

42 329 Phil. 300, 309-310; 260 SCRA 503 (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.

671

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 671

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

(8) People v. Salvador P. Nopre, et al. 11156- August 9, 1991

11160
(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- September 3,
13680 1991
(12) People v. Ramon N. Guico, Jr. et 16516 December 2,
al. 1991
(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- January 6, 1993
13695
(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- August 19,
Sindac, et al. 13748 1994
(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,
Santos, et al. 1995
(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

672
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

(38) People v. Roberto Estanislao 16854 January 22,

Chang, et al. 1996
(39) People v. Godofredo Yambao, et 16927- March 13, 1996
al. 16928
(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- March 31, 1997
16585
(47) People v. SPO3 Serafin V. Reyes 21608 March 31, 1997
(48) People v. Mayor Samuel F. 22195- March 31, 1997
Bueser, et al. 22196
(49) People v. Romeo C. Monteclaro 14223 May 6, 1997
(50) People v. Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo 20948- October 17,
20949 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,
Geronimo, et al. 1998
(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- May 8, 1998
Leaño 9967
(57) People v. Teresita S. Lazaro 17901 June 8, 1998
(58) People v. Brig. Gen. Raymundo 20688 October 19,
Jarque, et al. 1998
(59) People v. Pros. Filotea Estorninos 23509 October 19,
1998
(60) People v. Orlando Mina 19534- October 20,
 19545 1998
(61) People v. Vice Gov. Milagros A. 23042 October 20,
Balgos 1998

673

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 673

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

(62) People v. Ceferino Paredes, Jr., et 18857 November 17,

al. 1998
(63) People v. Brig. Gen. Raymundo 18696 January 15,
Jarque, et al. 1999
(64) People v. Mayor Agustin R. 23336 January 15,
Escaño, Jr. 1999
(65) People v. Mayor Edgar V. Teves, 23374 January 15,
et al. 1999
(66) People v. C/Supt. Alfonso T. 22832 January 29,
Clemente, et al. 1999
(67) People v. Dominica Santos 19059- February 18,
19063 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- August 6, 1999
24098
(71) People v. Mayor Jeceju L. Manaay 24402 August 6, 1999
(72) People v. Dir. Rosalinda Majarais, 24355 August 18,
et al. 1999
(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- October 11,
19779 1999
(77) People v. Atty. Alfredo Fordan 24433- October 11,
Rellora, et al. 24434 1999
(78) People v. Faustino Balacuit 98 December 22,
1999
(79) People v. Mayor Bernardino 23418- January 6,
Alcaria, Jr., et al. 23423 2000
(80) People v. Joel R. Lachica, et al. 24319- January 6,
24329 2000
(81) People v. Jose Micabalo, et al. 24531- April 27, 2000
24534
(82) People v. Mayor Eduardo Alarilla 23069 May 29, 2000
(83) People v. Pros. Nilo M. Sarsaba, et 23323 May 29, 2000
al.
(84) People v. Philip G. Zamora 24150 May 29, 2000

674

674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

**
Second Division

Case Title Case No. Date Submitted for

Decision
(1) People v. Marcelino 18435 August 11, 2000
Cordova, et al.
(2) People v. Benjamin T. 22858 August 11, 2000
Damian
(3) People v. Lino L. Labis, et 22398 July 18, 2000
al.
(4) People v. Alfredo 24407- August 11, 2000
Sarmiento, et al. 24408

***
Third Division

Case Title Case No. Date Submitted for

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- April 6, 2000
13863
(4) People v. Manuel R. Galvez, 13889 September 30, 1999
et al.
(5) People v. Tolentino 16756 August 28, 1999
Mendoza, et al.
 Case Title Case No. Date Submitted for
Decision
(6) People v. Rodrigo Villas 19563 April 6, 2000
(7) People v. Ernesto Vargas 19574 April 6, 2000
(8) People v. Ernesto, Vargas, et 20053 April 6, 2000
al.
(9) People v. Marcelo T. 23522 July 6, 2000
Abrenica, et al.
(10) People v. Florencio Garay, 25657 May 5, 2000
et al.

_______________

** 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).

675

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 675

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

****
Fourth Division

Case Title Case Date Submitted for

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- May 9, 2000
42
(4) People v. Olegario Clarin, Jr., 25198 July 12, 2000
et al.

*****
Fifth Division

Case Title Case No. Date Submitted for

Decision
(1) People v. Nestor A. Pablo 13344 January 16, 1998
(2) People v. Hernand D. 14397 January 13, 1999
Dabalus, et al.
 Case Title Case No. Date Submitted for
Decision
(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 17538 November 14, 1995
Pabelonia, et al.
(8) People v. Enrique B. Lenon, 17617 March 13, 1996
et al.
(9) People v. Constancio Bonite, 17618- May 1, 1995
et al. 17619
(10) People v. Jesus Villanueva 17884 January 9, 1996
(11) People v. Ricardo T. 18008 March 9, 1998
Liwanag, et al.
(12) People v. Ma. Lourdes L. 18036 January 18, 1995
Falcon
(13) People v. Luis D. Montero, 18684 July 24, 1998
et al.

_______________

**** 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).

676

676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

(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 18785 August 31, 1995
al.
(17) People v. Danilo R. Santos, et 18932 November 4,
al. 1997
(18) People v. Pat. Danilo Marañon 19039 May 24, 1995
(19) People v. Romeo Cabando, et 19378- May 27, 1996
al. 19379
(20) People v. SPO2 Rodolfo 19593 July 6, 1998
Burbos
(21) People v. Guillermo M. Viray, 19614 August 31, 1998
et al.
(22) People v. Mayor Bonifacio 20427 November 5,
Balahay 1999
(23) People v. Enrique Sy, et al. 20487 December 17,
1998
(24) People v. PO2 Manuel L. Bien 20648- March 31, 1998
20649
(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 undesirables45 in the government and eventually stamp out graft
and corruption.” We have held consistently that a delay of three (3)
46
years in deciding a single case is inexcusably long. 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

_______________

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; 280 SCRA 637 (1997).

677

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 677

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

the packing
47
and crating of records; and that some boxes were still
unopened.
We likewise find unacceptable Presiding Justice Garchitorena’s
48
excuse that one case alone comprises more than fifty percent (50%)
of the First Division’s backlog and that the same has been set for
49
promulgation on December 8, 2000. 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
50
(7) years (since 1994). 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
51
pending promulgation before the five divisions of the
52
Sandiganbayan are:

_______________

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.

678

678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

First Division

Case Number DateSubmitted Case Number Date Submitted

1. 11156 8/9/91 39. 14375 5/22/95
2. 11157 8/9/91 40. 14411 1/24/93
3. 11158 8/9/91 41. 14975 9/29/94
4. 11159 8/9/91 42. 14986 12/11/92
5. 11160 8/9/91 43. 15006 11/19/94
Case Number DateSubmitted Case Number Date Submitted
6. 11999 12/10/90 44. 15168 3/25/93
7. 12102 7/1/91 45. 15301 3/16/94
8. 12127 2/12/90 46. 16239 12/26/91
9. 12139 6/10/92 47. 16516 11/19/91
10. 12289 8/28/91 48. 16583 8/13/96
11. 12305 2/7/91 49. 16584 8/13/96
12. 12306 2/7/91 50. 16585 8/13/96
13. 13015 3/2/92 51. 16695 8/15/96
14. 13171 11/16/95 52. 16854 1/15/96
15. 13353 10/6/90 53. 16927 12/17/95
16. 13521 12/12/99 54. 16928 2/17/95
17. 13563 7/4/95 55. 16946 8/4/93
18. 13618 7/14/91 56. 17001 9/4/97
19. 13668 6/13/93 57. 17278 5/2/94
20. 13672 3/5/92 58. 17447 9/6/94
21. 13679 8/6/91 59. 17448 9/6/94
22. 13680 8/6/91 60. 17514 8/19/94
23. 13689 11/14/92 61. 17600 8/30/97
24. 13690 11/14/92 62. 17601 8/30/97
25. 13691 11/14/92 63. 17670 11/25/94
26. 13692 11/14/92 64. 17759 6/25/96
27. 13693 11/14/92 65. 17901 5/28/98
28. 13694 11/14/9 66. 18283 2/21/95
29. 13695 11/14/92 67. 18696 8/9/98
30. 13708 3/9/92 68. 18857 10/21/98
31. 13747 8/19/94 69. 19059 2/11/99
32. 13748 8/19/94 70. 19060 2/11/99
33. 13971 3/12/95 71. 19061 2/11/99
34. 14223 3/7/97 72. 19062 2/11/99
35. 14227 9/5/92 73. 19063 2/11/99
36. 14230 11/30/90 74. 19534 9/2/98
37. 14287 7/3/94 75. 19535 9/2/98
38. 14324 11/5/95 76. 19651 11/15/96
 679

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 679

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

77. 19708 8/25/98 117. 24049 4/28/99

78. 19773 5/21/99 118. 24050 4/28/99
79. 19774 5/21/99 119. 24051 4/28/99
80. 19775 5/21/99 120. 24052 4/28/99
81. 19976 5/21/99 121. 24053 4/28/99
82. 19977 5/21/99 122. 24054 4/28/99
83. 19978 5/21/99 123. 24055 4/28/99
84. 19979 5/21/99 124. 24056 4/28/99
85. 20588 2/14/95 125. 24057 4/28/99
86. 20688 7/9/98 126. 24058 4/28/99
87. 20948 10/9/97 127. 24059 4/28/99
88. 20949 10/9/97 128. 24060 4/28/99
89. 21020 7/4/95 129. 24061 4/28/99
90. 22145 7/7/99 130. 24062 4/28/99
91. 22195 6/14/96 131. 24063 4/28/99
92. 22196 6/14/96 132. 24064 4/28/99
93. 22832 10/21/98 133. 24065 4/28/99
94. 23042 8/27/98 134. 24066 4/28/99
95. 23146 11/13/00 135. 24067 4/28/99
96. 23273 4/19/99 136. 24068 4/28/99
97. 23323 3/23/00 137. 24069 4/28/99
98. 23324 8/3/97 138. 24070 4/28/99
99. 23336 9/4/97 139. 24071 4/28/99
100. 23374 12/17/98 140. 24072 4/28/99
101. 23418 10/15/99 141. 24073 4/28/99
102. 23419 10/15/99 142. 24074 4/28/99
103. 23420 10/15/99 143. 24075 4/28/99
104. 23421 10/15/99 144. 24076 4/28/99
105. 23422 10/15/99 145. 24077 4/28/99
106. 23423 10/15/99 146. 24078 4/28/99
107. 23509 9/5/98 147. 24079 4/28/99
108. 23511 4/23/99 148. 24080 4/28/99
109. 23540 10/15/99 149. 24081 4/28/99
110. 24042 4/28/99 150. 24082 4/28/99
111. 24043 4/28/99 151. 24083