G.R. Nos. 236177-210 - JOAN V. ALARILLA, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN(FOURTH DIVISION) AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the investigating prosecutor has 10 days "after the investigation x x x [to] determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial." This 10-day period may seem short or unreasonable from an administrative standpoint. However, given the Court's duty to balance the right of the State to-prosecute violations of its laws vis-a-vis the rights of citizens to speedy disposition of cases, the Court ruled that citizens ought not to be prejudiced by the Ombudsman's failure to provide for particular time periods in its own Rules of Procedure. [23] On 15 August 2020, mere weeks after the promulgation of Javier and Catamco , the Ombudsman introduced welcome developments to its rules of procedure through Administrative Order No. (AO) 1, Series of 2020. Under AO 1, the Ombudsman now has clearly specified time periods for conducting not only preliminary investigations, but also fact-finding investigations and administrative adjudications. For preliminary investigations, AO 1 provides: Section 8 . Period for the conduct of Preliminary Investigation . - Unless otherwise provided for in a separate issuance, such as an Office Order creating a special panel of investigators/prosecutors and prescribing the period for completion of the preliminary investigation, the proceedings therein shall not exceed twelve (12) months for simple cases or twenty-four months (24) months for complex cases, subject to the following considerations: (a) The complexity of the case shall be determined on the basis of factors such as, but not limited to, the number of respondents, the number of offenses charged, the volume of documents, the geographical coverage, and the amount of public funds involved. (b) Any delay incurred in the proceedings, whenever attributable to the respondent, shall suspend the running of the period for purposes of completing the preliminary investigation. (c) The period herein prescribed may be extended by written authority of the Ombudsman, or the Overall Deputy Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor/Deputy Ombudsman concerned for justifiable reasons, which extension shall not exceed one (1) year. [24] In the present case, the the formal complaint was filed on 18 January 2008 . Petitioner and her husband were able to submit their joint counter­ affidavit on 09 July 2008. However, after filing their counter-affidavit, it took the Ombudman more than eight (8) years to issue the Resolution dated 03 November 2016 finding probable cause against petitioner. Applying either the short 10-day period in Javier and Catamco , or the more generous 12 to 24-month periods under AO 1, it is apparent that the Ombudsman exceeded the specified time period for preliminary investigations. Thus, following Cagang , the burden of proof shifted to the prosecution, who must establish that the delay was reasonable and justified under the circumstances. Once the burden of proof s