PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), JULIUS CAESAR FALAR HERRERA, CESAR TOMAS MOZO LOPEZ, AMALIA REYES TIROL, ESTER CORAZON JAMISOLA GALBREATH, ALFONSO RAFOLS DAMALERIO II, MA. FE CAMACHO-LEJOS, JOSIL ESTUR TRABAJO

Ruling

Accordingly, the OMB filed the Information [20] against respondents before the SB on December 1, 2017 docketed as Crim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-2200. Thereafter, the criminal case was set for arraignment and pre-trial on January 26, 2018. [21] However, Cajes-Yap moved for postponement of the pre-trial on the ground that she just filed a Motion to Dismiss/Quash Information [22] on January 26, 2018 for violation of her right to speedy disposition of cases and speedy trial. She pointed out in her motion to dismiss that the investigation took more or less six (6) years before the OMB issued the resolution on the complaint on December 6, 2016 and filed the Information on December 1, 2017. [23] Meanwhile, on January 31, 2018, Tirol, Galbreath, Imboy, Camacho-­Lejos, and Apalisok-Piollo also filed a Motion to Dismiss [24] essentially echoing Cajes-Yap's argument as regards the inordinate delay in the investigation and filing of the Information. They added that the fact-finding investigation should not be deemed separate from the preliminary investigation. [25] Responding to the two (2) motions to dismiss, the prosecution argued in its Consolidated Comment/Opposition, [26] dated February 5, 2018, that only three (3) years and twenty-five (25) days had elapsed from the filing of the complaint for preliminary investigation on November 6, 2014 up to the filing of the Information on December 1, 2017. Hence, there was no oppressive delay. If there was any, it claimed that the delay is reasonable as the case involves twenty-five (25) respondents a quo , and the evaluation and study of the entire case records will take some time to complete. [27] Subsequently, Lopez and Damalerio II, [28] later joined by Trabajo, [29] as well as Herrera, [30] filed their respective motions to dismiss. Together, they echoed the discussions in the earlier-filed Motions to Dismiss, adding that the OMB's inordinate delay in the filing of the Information against them deprived the SB of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same. [31] For its part, the OMB adopted its February 5, 2018 comment/opposition in response to these motions. [32] The SB Ruling In a Resolution [33] dated March 16, 2018, the SB found the motions filed by Cajes-Yap, et al. partly meritorious, finding that the OMB indeed committed inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. Particularly, it pointed out that, contrary to the prosecution's claim, records show that the fact-finding investigation began in 2012 and thus, it took the OMB almost six (6) years to complete the fact-finding and preliminary investigation before it filed the Information on December 1, 2017. [34] Moreover, it noted that the prosecution did not provide any plausible explanation for the delay. Thus, it dismissed the case as against them for violation of their constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their case. [35] Subsequently, in a Resolution [36] dated April 17, 2018, the SB granted the motions filed by Lopez an