REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SAN DIGAN BAYAN

QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THE Criminal Case No. SB-16-

PHILIPPINES, CRM-0270
For: Violation of Section 3 (e), of
Republic Act No. 3019

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,
Chairperson,
FERNANDEZ, B., J. and
EMMANUEL CEDRO ANDAYA, TRESPESES,J.1
et al.,

For resolution is accused Antonio V. Sillona's "Motion to

Dismiss" dated January 17, 2018.2

Accused-movant Sillona prays that the present case

against him be dismissed on the ground that his constitutional
right to speedy disposition of cases had been violated. He ~

1 Sitting as a special member of the Third Division as per Administrative Order No. 091-2018 dated~
February 9, 2018
2 pp. 35-60, Vol. II, Record k
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et al.

that the complaint against him was filed on April 26, 2011.3
However, the respondents (now accused) were required to file
their counter-affidavits only on May 15,2012, or more than one
(1) year from the filing of the said complaint. 4 The Office of the
Ombudsman took another two (2) years and ten (10) months to
resolve the preliminary investigation in this case, while the
present Information was filed with the Court only on May 4,
2016.5 It thus took the Office of the Ombudsman five (5) years
to terminate the preliminary investigation in this case .
.
Relying on the case of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan,6 the
accused-movant argues that the long delay in the resolution of
the preliminary investigation in this case violated his right to
speedy disposition of cases and speedy trial thereby warranting
the dismissal of the present case against him.7 He maintains
that the right to speedy disposition of cases covers not only the
period within which the / preliminary investigation was
conducted but also all the stages to which the respondent was
subjected. In support thereof, he invokes the cases of
Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan,8 Lopez v. Office of the
Ombudsman, et al.,9 People v. Sandiganbayan, et aL,10 and
Torres v. Sandiganbayan.11

Accused-movant Sillona further contends that he had been

"greatly prejudiced" by the delay in this case. He claims that [1]
he has remained under a cloud of uncertainty for five (5) long
years; [2]the charges against him has tainted his reputation; [3]
the accusations against him caused him to be alienated from
his friends and peers, to the extent that he was being
discriminated against; [4] he had suffered anxiety and unrest;
[5] the stigma of the criminal accusations against him made it

3 p. 40, Vol. II, Record

/? ..
p. 40, Vol. II, Record

M 'Y'
4

5 p. 40, Vol. II, Record

6159 SCRA 70 (1988)
7 p. 40, Vol. II, Record

8 701 SCRA 188 (2013)

9 364 SCRA 569 (2001)
10712 SeRA 359 (2013)
11 805 SCRA 455 (2016)
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et ai.

difficult for him to start a new career in government service;12

and, [6] the prolonged investigation in this case put him at a
disadvantage because the passage of time unduly affected his
and his witnesses' recollection of details and his access to
pertinent records and material witnesses. Thus, his defense is
effectively impaired and his financial resources had allegedly
been depleted as he continues to incur legal expenses to defend
himself.13

Also, the accused-movant points to the fact that it is the

duty of the prosecutors to speedily resolve cases pending before
them regardless of the respondents' acquiescence to the delay
or his/her failure to object thereto.14 He asserts that the Office
of the Ombudsman failed to comply with the provisions of
Section 3 (f),Rule 112 of the Rules of Court which requires the
investigating officer to determine, within ten (10) days from the
termination of the investigation, whether or not there is
sufficient ground to hold a respondent for trial. 15

Lastly, accused -movant Sillona invokes the ruling of the

Sandiganbayan, Second Division, in the case of People v.
Emmanuel C. Andaya, et al,16 wherein the criminal case
against herein accused was dismissed on the ground of a
violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases. 17

In its "Opposition (to Accused Antonio V. Sillona's Motion to

Dismiss dated 17January 2018)" dated January 30,2018,18 the
prosecution contends that there was no inordinate delay in the
preliminary investigation of this case or a violation of the
accused-movant's right to speedy disposition of cases.19 It
chronicles the following factual antecedents surrounding the
preliminary investigation in this case, to ~ .

p. 44/ Vol. 11/ Record

/6/.
12

13 p. 45/ Vol. 11/ Record

14 p. 46/ Vol. 11/ Record
15 p. 46/ Vol. 11/ Record

16 Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1418

17 Annex A, pp. 52-60/ Vol. 11/ Record _
18 pp. 88-99, Vol. 11/ Record
19 p. 92/ Vol. 11/ Record
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et al.

2. The records of this case disclose that on 26 April

2011, private complainant Guillermo L.
Sylianteng, Jr. filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman a Complaint Affidavit20 dated 25 April
2011 for Violation of Section 53(b) and Section
54.2(d) of R.A. No. 9184; Violation of Section 3(e)
and 4(b) of R.A. No. 3019; and Violation of Article
171 of the Revised Penal Code against therein
respondents Emmanuel C. Andaya, Atty. Sylvia
Banda, Josefina S. Samson, Engr. Antonio V.
Sillona, Bernadette T. Lagumen, Ma. Gracia L.
Enriquez, Ruben Dancel (all of the National
Printing Office)and Advance Computer Forms, Inc.

3. The Complaint Affidavit was forthwith evaluated on

27 April 2011 and, thereafter, or on 03 June
2011, forwarded to Graft Investigation and
Prosecution Officer Francisco Alan L. Molina for
proper action. On 15 May 2012, a directive was
issued to GIPO Molina to conduct preliminary
investigation and administrative adjudication
proceedings. On even date, orders were issued to
the respondents for the filing of their respective
counter-affidavits.

4. On 24 May 2012, respondents Andaya, Banda,

Samson, Sillona, Lagumen and Enriquez filed a
Motion for Additional Time to file Counter-Affidavit
and other Supporting Documents. On 01 June
2012, respondent Kevin Haw, President of Advance
Computer Forms, Inc., likewise filed a Motion for
Extension of Time to File Counter-Affidavit.

Respondent Haw filed his Counter-Affidavit on 14

June 2012. In response thereto, the private
complainant filed a Reply Affidavit on 29 June
2012'/7 '
'r!'
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et al.

6. Meanwhile respondents Andaya, Banda, Samson,

Sillona, Lagumen and Enriquez filed their Joint
Counter-Affidavit on 15 June 2012 while
respondent Dancel filed his Counter-Affidavit on
02 July 2012. On 11 July 2012, the private
complainant moved for an additional time to file
his reply affidavit to the said counter-affidavits. He
filed a Consolidated Reply Affidavit on 25 July
2012.

7. Respondents Andaya, Banda, Samson, Sillona,

Lagumen and Enriquez, on 09 August 2012,
moved for an additional time to file rejoinder. Their
Consolidated Rejoinder Affidavit was subsequently
filed on 29 August 2012.

8. For his part, the private respondent moved for an

extension of time to file sur-rejoinder on 10
September 2012. He filed his Sur-Rejoinder on 19
September 2012.

9. GIPO Molina then proceeded to resolve the

complaint. A draft resolution was prepared for
review and / or revision through various levels of the
Office of the Ombudsman. Meanwhile, or on 12
March 2013, the private complainant filed a
Motion to Resolve Complaint.

10. On 27 July 2015, the Ombudsman finally

approved the Resolution dated 24 July 2015,
finding probable cause to indict respondents
Andaya, Banda, Samson, Sillona, Lagumen and
Enriquez for Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic
Act No. 3019 and recommending the filing of the
corresponding Information before the
Sandigan bayan.

11. On 20 August 2015, respondents Andaya, Banda,

Samson, Sillona, Lagumen and Enriquez moved for
the reconsideration of the said resolution and the
deferment of the filing of the Information. The
private complainant filed his Opposition thereto on
02 September 2015. The said respondents ~

/~
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et al.

flIed their Reply thereto and Supplemental Motion

for Reconsideration on 18 September 2015. The
private complainant, thereafter, filed his Comment
thereto on 12 October 2015.

12. In an Order dated 06 November 2015, which was

approved by the Ombudsman on 20 January
2016, the Motion for Reconsideration with Motion
to Defer the Filing of Information was denied.

13. On 04 May 2016, the corresponding Information

was flIed before the Sandiganbayan.21

The prosecu tion claims that the above chronology of

events shows that the time taken by the Office of the
Ombudsman to resolve the preliminary investigation in this
case was neither vexatious, capricious, oppressive nor
unjustified. It submits that the exchange of numerous pleadings
between the parties; the motions for extension filed by them; the
exercise of care by the Office of the Ombudsman in verifying,
evaluating and assessing the charges against the respondents
(now accused-movants); and, the fact that the resolution of the
case had to undergo a hierarchy of review before it was finally
approved by the Ombudsman should all be taken into
consideration in the determination of the existence of inordinate
delay.22

Moreover, the prosecution argues that just like the

accused-movant, it also shares the burden of producing
witnesses and other pertinent documents in order to build the
case against the accused-movant despite the passage of time.23

Finally, the prosecution points to the fact that the

accused-movant never complained of a violation to his right to
speedy trial during the entire period of the preliminary

21

22
pp. 88-90, Vol. II, Record
pp. 90-91, Vol. II, Record
23 pp. 91-92, Vol. II, Record
/? .
~ 1-
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et al.

investigation of this case.24 It is only now that he is asserting

such right when the present case is already set for the initial
presentation of the prosecution evidence.

After an assiduous assessment of the arguments raised by

the parties, the Court finds the subject motion unmeritorious.

To begin with, it is settled that although the Constitution

guarantees the right to speedy disposition of cases, such speedy
disposition is a flexible concept.25 To properly define that
concept, the facts and circumstances surrounding each case
must be evaluated and taken into account.26 In other words,
jurisprudence instructs that courts are compelled to approach
such cases on an ad hoc basis and weigh the conducts of both
the prosecution and the accused vis-a-vis the [1]length of delay;
[2] reason for the delay; [3] accused's assertion or non-assertion
of his/her right to speedy trial; and, [4] prejudice caused to the
defendant resulting from the delay.27

Thus, the cases invoked by the accused-movant to support

his claim of inordinate delay cannot be blindly applied to the
present case without a close scrutiny of the attendant facts and
circumstances surrounding the preliminary investigation in the
present case. To be sure, a mere mathematical reckoning of the
time involved is not sufficient to hold the existence of inordinate
delay.28

The records of this case show the following factual

antecedents surrounding the preliminary investigation
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, ~

24

25
p. 91,Vol. II, Record
Ombudsman v. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135 (2008)
;If; ,
26 Remulla v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 218040, Apri/17, 2017 ,./ •
27 See Remulla v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 218040, Apri/17, 2017 '/
28 Dela Peiia v. Sandiganbayan, 360 SCRA 478 (2001)
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et al.

1. On April 26, 2011, private complainant Guillermo

L. Sylianteng, Jr., filed his Complaint-Affidavit
dated April 25, 2011, with the Office of the
Ombudsman; 29

2. On May 15, 2012, a directive was issued to Graft

Investigation and Prosecution Officer Alan L.
Molina to conduct a preliminary investigation and
administrative adjudication in the present case;
thereafter, orders were given to the respondents to
file their respective counter-affidavits;30

3. On May 24, 2012, then respondents Andaya,

Banda, Samson, Sillona, Lagumen and Enriquez
filed a "Motion for Additional Time to File Counter-
Affidavits and other Supporting Documents;"31

4. On June. 14, 2012, private respondent Haw filed

his counter-affidavit;32

5. On June 15, 2012, respondents Andaya, Banda,

Samson, Sillona, Lagumen and Enriquez filed their
('Joint Counter-Affidavit" dated June 14,2012;33

6. On July 2, 2012, respondent Dancel filed his

counter-affidavit;34

7. On July 11, 2012, the private complainant prayed

for an additional time to file his reply-affidavit;35

8. On July 25, 2012, private complainant Sylianteng

filed his ((Consolidated Reply Affidavit" dated July
22, 2012;36 the private complainant requested and
was given an extension of time to file his reply until
July 26, 2012;37 ~
29 pp. 27-53, Vol. I, Record /'
30 p. 89, Vol. II, Record
31 p. 89, Vol. II, Record

32 p. 89, Vol. II, Record

33 pp. 54- 130, Vol. I, Record

34 p. 89, Vol. II, Record

35 p. 89, Vol. II, Record

36 pp. 169-183, Vol. I, Record

37 p. 169, Vol. I, Record

Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-l6-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et al.

9. On August 9, 2012, the above-mentioned

respondents also prayed for an additional time to
file their rejoinder;38

10. On August 29, 2012, respondents Andaya, Banda,

Samson, Sillona, Lagumen and Enriquez filed their
"Consolidated Rejoinder Affidavit" of even date;39

11. On September 10, 2012, the private complainant

likewise requested for an extension of time to file
his sur-rejoinder;4o

12. On September 19, 2012, private complainant

Sylianteng filed his "Sur-Rejoinder" of even date;41

13. On July 24, 2015, the Office of the Ombudsman

issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict
then respondents Andaya, Banda, Samson, Sillona,
Lagumen and Enriquez for violation of Section 3 (e)
of Republic Act (R.A.)No. 3019; the said resolution
was approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-
Morales on July 27, 2015;42

14. On November 6, 2015, the Office of the

Ombudsman issued an Order which denied the
motions for reconsideration filed by the above-
mentioned respondents; the said Order was
approved by Ombudsman Morales on January 20,
2016;43

The present Information was drafted by Generoso

Severo H. Plazo, Assitant Special Prosecutor II, on
April 1, 2016. The same Information was approved
by Ombudsman Morales on April 15, 2016;44 and,

38 p. 89, Vol. II, Recorst

39 pp. 184-249, Vol. I, Record

40 p. 89, Vol. II, Record

r
/1J r'
41 pp. 131-168, Vol. I, Record
42 pp. 7-21, Vol. I, Record

43 pp. 22-26, Vol. I, Record

44 pp. 1-4, Vol. I, Record

Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Aridaya, et ai.

16. On May 4, 2016, the Information in this case was

filed.45

Plainly, the Office of the Ombudsman took continued

actions to resolve the preliminary investigation in the present
case. Also, the motion for reconsideration filed by the
respondents was immediately resolved. Undeniably, the
numerous' pleadings filed by the parties and the motions for
extension of time filed by them contributed to the delay in this
case. While there was a delay in the disposition of the case
before the Office of the Ombudsman, the Court does not find
such delay as vexatious, arbitrary, capricious or oppressive
warranting the dismissal of the present case.

To repeat, the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is a

relative and flexible concept. It is consistent with reasonable
delays and depends upon the circumstances.46 What is
proscribed is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delay
which render rights nugatory.47

Indeed, the period during which the pleadings (together

with its annexes) were examined and reviewed, the motions for
extension of time filed by the parties, the time poured into the
research of pertinent laws and applicable jurisprudence, the
levels of review that the case had to go through and the exercise
of legal judgment and discretion must also be taken into
consideration in determining the existence of inordinate delay.

It is noteworthy that the accused-movant and his co-

accused never raised the issue of inordinate delay, or at least
took any step in order to accelerate the proceedings in the
preliminary investigation of their case. It is only now, or when
the case is already set for the initial presentation' of the
prosecution's evidence, that the accused-movant is minded to
assert his right to speedy tri~ •

"pp. 5-£, Vol. I, Record

46 Braza v. Sandiganbayan, 691 SCRA 471 (2013)
~ I
47 Ombudsman v. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135 (2008), Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan, 440 SCRA 423 (2004)
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et al.

While it is true that a respondent in criminal case has no

obligation to follow-up on his case, it is likewise
jurisprudentially settled that the accused's assertion of his/her
right to speedy disposition of cases is entitled to strong
evidentiary weight in determining whether or not he/she is
being deprived thereof; hence, failure to claim such right at the
earliest opportunity will make it difficult to prove that there was
denial of the respondent's right to speedy trial. 48

On the issue that the accused-movant was "greatly

prejudiced" because of the delay in this case, jurisprudence
abounds holding that the concept of "prejudice" should be
considered as one of the factors in determining whether the
accused's right to speedy disposition of cases had been
violated.49 In consideration thereof, the interests of the accused,
namely: [1] to prevent an oppressive pre-trial incarceration; [2]
minimize the anxiety and concern of the accused; and, [3] limit
the possibility that his/her defense will be impaired, should all
be weighed and considered in order to determine whether the
accused was seriously prejudiced by the delay.50

Here, the accused-movant immediately posted bail on May

6, 2016,51 or just after two (2) days52from filing of the present
Information. Thus, the accused-movant was not subjected to
any pre-trial incarceration.

On the anxiety and unrest allegedly suffered by the

accused-movant, the nature and degree thereof due to the delay
in the disposition of his case must be oppressive, unnecessary
and notoriously disproportionate to the nature of the criminal
charge for it to constitute a violation of the accused's right to
speedy trial. 53 The accused-movant miserably failed to
demonstrate the kind of anxiety that he purportedly sUffer~

48

49
See Perez v. People, 544 SCRA 532 (2008) citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 US 514 (1972)
See Jaeob v. Sandiganbayan,
c'~
635 SCRA 94 (2010), Perez v. People, 544 SCRA 532 (2008), Spouses Uy v.
J

Adriano, 505 SCRA 625 (2006), Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, 442 SCRA 294 (2004)
50 Perez v. People, 544 SCRA 532 (2008) citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 US 514 (1972), Ombudsman

561 SCRA 135 (2008)

51 p. 259, Vol. I, Record
v. Jurado,
7
•••.

•
52 The Information in this case was filed on May 4, 2016
53 See separate concurring opinion of Justice Josue N. Belosillo in People v. Laeson, 400 SCRA 267 (2003).
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et al.

during the preliminary investigation of this case. Suffice it to

state that any anxiety, suffering, mental and emotional stress
due to the uncertainties brought about by the pending charges
against an accused are unwelcome but attendant
inconveniences that confront any respondent or any accused in
a criminal case.

In the same vein, accused-movant Sillona's claim that the

passage of time unduly affected his and his witnesses'
recollection of details and access to pertinent records remain
unsubstantiated. In fact, he has not identified who these
potential witnesses would be.

On accused-movant Sillona's argument that the

investigating prosecutor should have determined the existence
of probable cause within ten (10) days from the termination of
the preliminary investigation, pursuant to Section 3 (f), Rule
112 of the Rules of Court,54 the Supreme Court has ruled that
said period is merely directory. In· Raro v. Sandiganbayan,55
the High Court ruled:

The length of time it took before the conclusion of

the preliminary investigation may only be attributed to
the adherence of the Ombudsman and the NBI to the
rules of procedure and the rudiments of fair play. The
allegations of Abaiio's complaint had to be verified; the
Ombudsman did not believe the same hook, line and
sinker. Recently, the Court held that while the Rules
of Court provides a ten-day period from submission
of the case within which an investigating officer
must come out with a resolution, that period of
time is merely directory. 56 Thus:

r
"The Court is not unmindful of the duty of
the Ombudsman under the Constitution and
Republic Act No. 6770 to act promptly on
Complaints brought before him. But such

54 p. 47, Vol. /I, Record .

55335 SeRA 581 (2000) ~ ,,/.
56 Emphasis supplied [ _ /
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et ai.

should not be mistaken with a hasty resolution

of cases at the expense of thoroughness and
correctness. Judicial notice should be taken of
the fact that the nature of the Office of the
Ombudsman encourages individuals who clamor
for efficient· government service to freely lodge
their Complaints against wrongdoings of
government personnel, thus resulting in a
steady stream of cases reaching the Office of the
Ombudsman."

Accused-movant Sillona's reliance on the ruling of the

Sandiganbayan, Second Division, in the case of People v.
Emmanuel C. Andaya, et al.,57 is misplaced.

The Sandiganbayan operates in Divisions of three (3)·

Justices each and each Division functions independently of the
other.58 In Francisco v. Rojas,59 the Supreme Court teaches
that while a ruling of a particular division of the Court of
Appeals may be taken cognizance of in some cases, it cannot
bind or prejudice a ruling of another division thereof, the former
being a co-ordinate authority, thus:

In a hierarchical judicial system like ours, the

decisions of the higher courts bind the lower courts; the
courts of co-ordinate authority do not bind each
other;60and the one highest court does not bind itself,
it being invested with the innate authority to rule
according to its best lights.61 The principle of stare
decisis enjoins adherence by lower courts to doctrinal
rules established by the Supreme Court in its final
decisions.

57 Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1418

58 Preagido v. Sandiganbayan, 476 SCRA 143 (2005) citing De Guzman vs. People, 119 SCRA 337 (1982)
59723 SCRA 423 (2014)
60 Emphasis supplied
61 Footnote omitted
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0270
People vs. Andaya, et al.

Applying by analogy the above-mentioned pronouncement

to the present case, the rulings of the other divisions of this
Court likewise have no binding force on the findings of this
Division. Further, it must be emphasized that the only judicial
decisions which form part of our legal system are the decisions
of the Supreme Court.62 Thus, only the rulings and decisions of
the Supreme Court can serve as binding precedents to the
determinations to be made by the Sandiganbayan.63

WHEREFORE, accused-movant Antonio V. Sillona's

"Motion to Dismiss" dated January 17, 2018, is DENIED for lack
of merit.

Quezon City, Metro Manila

PARO M&z\1iO TAN

Presiding Justice
Chairperson

62 auasha Pena Ancheta &Nolasco Law Office vs. Court of Appeals, 607 SeRA 712 (2009)
63 Sarriga v. Sandiganbayan, 586 seRA 63 (2009)