RAFAEL L. COSCOLLUELA, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

Accordingly, the delay of eight (8) years of the instant case should be deemed prejudicial to their right to speedy disposition of cases. [19] The SB, however, denied the foregoing motions in its Resolution [20] dated February 10, 2010 for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petitions. The Issue Before the Court The sole issue raised for the Courts resolution is whether the SB gravely abused its discretion in finding that petitioners right to speedy disposition of cases was not violated. The Courts Ruling The petitions are meritorious. A persons right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution) which provides: SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice. [21] It must be noted, however, that the right to speedy disposition of cases should be understood to be a relative or flexible concept such that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient. [22] Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or even without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. [23] Hence, in the determination of whether the defendant has been denied his right to a speedy disposition of a case, the following factors may be considered and balanced: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay. [24] Examining the incidents in the present case, the Court holds that petitioners right to a speedy disposition of their criminal case had been violated. First , it is observed that the preliminary investigation proceedings took a protracted amount of time to complete. In this relation, the Court does not lend credence to the SBs position that the conduct of preliminary investigation was terminated as early as March 27, 2003, or the time when Cañares prepared the Resolution recommending the filing of the Information. This is belied by Section 4, Rule II of the Administrative Order No. 07 dated April 10, 1990, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, which provides: SEC. 4. Procedure The preliminary investigation of cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts shall be conducted in the