Two divisions of the Sandiganbayan have arrived at different conclusions on whether the Ombudsman’s separate investigations of the graft cases of former Caloocan Mayor Recom Echiverri were unreasonably delayed.
The First Division threw out two of Echiverri’s cases on the grounds that his right to speedy proceedings was delayed—a sharp contrast to another division’s rejection of a similar motion filed by him.
Different court divisions handling separate cases rule on a case-by-case basis.
Common circumstances
But Echiverri’s cases share common circumstances: They involve projects that he awarded without the city council’s prior authorization between 2010 and 2011 and the complaints were formally brought to the Ombudsman’s attention around 2015.
In resolutions dated June 20 and July 27, the First Division ruled that the Ombudsman took too long to resolve two of the graft cases as the investigation lasted for two years and five months, and two years and 11 months, respectively.
The First Division said Rule 112, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provided that each phase of an investigation should take only 10 days.
The Ombudsman would usually cite its heavy workload and the multiple layers of review for the length of its investigations, but the First Division said the agency should “conduct a self-examination of [its] own rules of procedure, bearing in mind [its] primordial function of being the protector of the people.”
Motion denied
But the Special Sixth Division, through a 4-1 vote, denied a similar argument from Echiverri.
Its July 26 resolution covered another graft case against the accused that took two years and four months to investigate.
The Special Sixth Division quoted the Supreme Court’s 2004 acknowledgment that because of the steady stream of corruption cases before the Ombudsman, “naturally, disposition of those cases would take some time.”
It also noted that length “by itself… is not conclusive of whether or not there was a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases.”
The resolution thus allowed the case against Echiverri, concerning a road and drainage project at Barangay 164, to reach the trial stage.