Remulla v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 218040, 823 SCRA 17, 17 Apr.

2017

*Rights of the Accused

Facts:

Remulla filed a criminal complaint against Maliksi before the Ombudsman for violation of
sec. 3€ of RA 3019. He alleged that Maliksi, as governor of Cavite, caused the purchase of
certain medical supplies from Allied Medical Laboratories Corporation in Nov. 2002 without
conducting any public bidding. The Ombudsman found probable cause against Maliksi for
violation of sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019.

In a resolution, the Sandiganbayan found that Maliksi’s right to a speedy disposition of

his case was violated. Thus it dismissed the case against him. The OSP filed a motion for partial
reconsideration arguing that the delay in the preliminary investigation was neither whimsical
nor capricious, considering that Maliksi did not complain on the delay. Sandiganbayan denied
the motion for partial reconsideration.

Issue:

W/N the Ombudsman committed inordinate delay and violated Maliksi’s right to a
speedy disposition of his case.

Held:

Yes. The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to a speedy trial, is
deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when
without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party
having his case tried.

In addition, there is no constitutional or legal provision which states that it is mandatory

for the accused to follow up his case before his right to its speedy disposition can be
recognized. To rule otherwise would promote judicial legislation where the Court would provide
a compulsory requisite not specified by the constitutional provision