REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYAN
QUEZON CITY

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE Criminal Case No. SB-16-

PHILIPPINES, CRM-0773-0774
For: Falsification of Public
Documents (Art. 171 [4J of
the Revised Penal Code)
and Splitting of Contracts
(Sees. 65 [4J in relation to
Sees. 52 and 54 of
Republic Act [R.A.J No.
9184 and Sees. 52 and 54
of IRR-A of R.A. No. 9184)

ELPIDIO TAGAAN MAGANTE

et al.,

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,
Chairperson,
FERNANDEZ, S.J., J. and
FERNANDEZ, B., J.

For resolution is accused Lorenzo T. Sarigumba's ((Motion

to Dismiss and/ or Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable
Cause" dated December 19,2016.1
The accused-movant submits that his constitutional rights
to a speedy disposition of cases and due process had been
~iolatedthereby warrantingthe dismissal of these cases a/J

pp. 312-322, Record .

Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et ai.

him.2 Allegedly, the records of these cases show that the Office
of the Ombudsman-Visayas took almost seven (7) years to
resolve the criminal and administrative cases against him and'
the eventual filing of the Informations with the Court.3
According to the accused-movant, as early as September
1, 2009, the Office of the Ombudsman had already received a
letter about the alleged irregularities in the purchase of spare
parts of the subject vehicles. However, despite receipt thereof,
the letter was only docketed as a formal investigation and the
corresponding complaint was filed by the Public Assistance
Corruption Prevention Office of the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Visayas on January 7,2011.4
The accused-movant recounts that pursuant to the
Ombudsman's Order dated February 15, 2011,5 he timely filed
his Counter-Affidavit on April 15, 2011, which was received by
the Office of the Ombudsman on May 6, 2011;6 and, that he
also timely filed his position paper on September 14, 2011, in
compliance with the Order dated August 9, 2011 of the
Ombudsman.7 He avers that when his position paper was
received by the Office of the Ombudsman on September 28,
2011, the case was already submitted for decision.8
Furthermore, the accused-movant asserts that from
September 28, 2011 up to April 15, 2016, or for a period of
almost five (5) years after the submission of his position paper,
the Office of the Ombudsman did nothing to resolve the
criminal and administrative cases against him;9 and, that the
records will show that the factual and legal issues involving
these cases are not complicated. 10
In support of his submissions, the accused-movant
invokes the cases of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan,ll COSCOl~Uf ela
2 p. 312, Record
3 Id
4 pp. 312-313, Record ~
5 p. 313, Record

:::
9/d
~
f \}
lOld
11 159 SeRA 70 (1988)
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et al.

v. Sandiganbayan12 and the Sandiganbayan Resolution in

People v. Relampagos,13 wherein the First Division granted the
motion to dismiss filed by accused Inocentes C. Lopez on the
ground of inordinate delay on the part of the Office of
Ombudsman, viz:

The case of the People v. Coscolluela, invoked by the

accused-movants has emphasized the essential factors
to determine whether the Office of the [Ombudsman has
violated the constitutional right of the] accused to a
speedy disposition of their case that will warrant its
dismissal, thus:
[T]he right to speedy disposition of cases should
be understood to be a relative term or flexible
concept such that a mere mathematical reckoning
of the time involved would not be sufficient.

[I]t was not the petitioners' duty to follow up on

the prosecution of their case. Conversely, it was
the Office of the Ombudsman's responsibility to
expedite the same within the bounds of
reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to
promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.

[T]here is no complete resolution of a case under

preliminary investigation until the Ombudsman
approves the investigating officer's
recommendation to either file an Information with
the SB or to dismiss the complaint.

Guided by the foregoing principles, the Court is

convinced that the Office of the Ombudsman incurred
inordinate and unjustified delay in the conduct of the
preliminary investigation of this case in violation of the
right of the accused to a speedy disposition of their
case.
The above-enumerated material dates are not
disputed. The criminal complaint was filed on October
25, 2000 and terminated only on October 23, 2015 with
the filing of the information before this Court, Wh

" 701 seRA 188 (2013)

n
rvI/ '
" SB-1s-eRM-283, J,ne 23, 2016 /'\) ~ . )i)
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et ai.

means that it took the Officeof the Ombudsman fifteen

(15) long years to conclude the preliminary
investigation. In this span of years, the Court does not
see any intervening event that will excuse the Officeof
the Ombudsman to stretch the proceedings to such
unreasonable length.14

The accused-movant also submits that there is no

probable cause to indict him for the crimes charged since the
acts allegedly committed by him, which gave rise to the filing of
these cases, are not illegal15insisting that: the records of these
cases reflect that all of the three (3) questioned purchases did
not exceed the Php 250,000.00 limit;16 hence, the absence of
competitive bidding was justified; 17as the Chairman of the Bids
and Awards Committee (BAC),he inspected the delivery of the
ordered spare parts in accordance with the requisition and the
program of work and which he all found to be in order;18 and,
the elements of the offense charged have not been established,
particularly the second and third elements of Section 3 (e) of
Republic Act (R.A.)No. 3019.19
On January 27, 2017, the prosecution filed its
"Comment/ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and/ or Motion for
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause dated 19 December
2016 of accused Lorenzo T. Sarigumba. "20
Anent the issue of inordinate delay, the prosecution
recounts the following circumstances surrounding the
preparation of the Informations against the accused and his co-
accu/!
".pp. 315-316,
41
Record ~
15 p. 317, Record
16
1d
17
1d
18
1d
19 p. 318, Record
20 pp. 364-375, Record
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et aI.

6. Case records show that on November 18, 2010,

then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez approved the
Final Evaluation Report21 of Rosanna Ortiz (Ms. Ortiz)
recommending the upgrading of the Fact Finding
Investigation docketed as CPL-V-09-1042 into an
Ombudsman Criminal and Administrative Cases.
Thereafter, a Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit22 was
executed by Ms. Ortiz representing the Public
Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office of the
Ombudsman Visayas (PACPO-OMB-Visayas)against 10
respondents namely: 1) Elpidio Magante; 2) Ma. Agnes
B. Candug (Candug); 3) Ambrosio S. Orillos (Orillos); 4)
Trinidad T. Castolo (Castolo); 5) Alan Jaum (Jaum); 6)
Gaudioso C. Renegado, Jr. (Renegado Jr.); 7) Lorenzo T.
Sarigumba (Sarigumba); 8) Ernesto Rulida (Rulida); 9)
Raymundo T. Appari (Appari); and 10) Rochelle
Cababan (Cababan). A case was thereafter docketed
against the said respondents in 2011. In an Order dated
February 15, 201123 the said respondents were directed
to file their respective Counter-Affidavit. The Counter-
Affidavits filed by Candug, Renegado, Jaum and Castolo
were received by OMB-Visayas on May 3, 2011.24 As to
the Counter-Affidavits of Magante, Orillos, Sarigumba,
Rulida and Aparri these were received by OMB-Visayas
on May 6, 2011.25 In a Resolution dated 15 April 2016,
the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause for
violation of Section 65 (4) of RA 9184 in relation to
Sections 52 & 54 thereof and Sections 52 and 54 of its
IRR-A and Falsification of Public Documents under
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code against Magante,
Sarigumba, Orillos, Jaum and Cababan. Orillos,
Magante and Saligumba (sic) filed their Motion for
Reconsideration received by OMB-Visayas on May 31,
2015. In an Order dated June 28, 2016, the Office of
the Ombudsman denied Orillos, Magante and
Saligumba's (sic) Motion for Reconsideration. Jaum
likewise filed a separate Motion for Reconsideration
which was resolved by the Ombudsman in an Order
dated September 9, 2016. Two Informations were;niled

21 Footnote omitted
22/d

23/
d
24/d

25/
d
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et al.

against accused Magante, Sarigumba, Orillos, Jaum

and Cababan before the Sandiganbayan in October
2016.26

The prosecution further contends that assuming

arguendo, that the period for the fact-finding investigation is
included in the computation of determining delay, the Office of
the Ombudsman is still not guilty thereof narrating the
following factual antecedents with respect to the fact-finding
investigation:

The letter27 of Delfin Aguilar (Aguilar), Regional

Director (RD) of the Commission on Audit Region VII
DATED August 25, 2009 requesting the filing of
administrative and criminal charges against the
accused was received by OMB-Visayas on September 1,
2009. In a letter dated October 8, 2009, OMB-Visayas
requested RD for original or certified true copies of the
documents necessary in the investigation. It was only
on December 4, 200928 that OMB-Visayas received the
requested documents from COA Region VII. The Final
Evaluation Report dated June 30, 2010 was thereafter
forwarded to the Ombudsman Central Office on
September 24, 201029 which was approved by then
Ombudsman Gutierrez on November 18, 2010.30

According to the prosecution, the above-mentioned events

show no hiatus of action in the fact-finding investigation of the
Officeof the Ombudsman. Neither was there inordinate delay in
the conduct of the preliminary investigation.31 The prosecution
contends that there were ten (10) respondents in the complaint
who were afforded their right to fully explain themselves; th.n

26

27
28

29

30
1d
1d
pp. 365-366, Record
Footnote omitted

p. 367, Record
4 /

~
.

31 pp. 366-367, Record ~ \~

Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et al.

the service of processes took time and so was the filing of the
pleadings from the respondents; that the case records were
voluminous and entailed considerable time to study and
analyze; and, that it is a known fact that the Office of the
Ombudsman has to contend with more or less thousands of
complaint with shortage of lawyers.32
Lastly, the prosecution cites the Resolution of the Court
promulgated on January 9, 2017 which denied the Motion to
Dismiss filed by the accused -movant's co-accused. In the said
Resolution, the Court found that there was no inordinate delay
in the conduct of the fact-finding investigation and preliminary
investigation before the Officeof the Ombudsman.33

The Court finds the subject motion bereft of merit.

To begin with, the Court had already resolved the issue of
whether the Officeof the Ombudsman incurred inordinate delay
in the proceedings before it in respect of these cases. In its
Resolution promulgated on January 9, 2017, the Court denied
the motion to dismiss filed by accused Elpidio Tagaan Magante
which invoked, among other grounds, the alleged inordinate
delay in resolving the preliminary investigation before the Office
of the Ombudsman. 34 In a subsequent Resolution
promulgated on February 7, 2017, the Court also denied the
motion to dismiss, filed by accused Alan Ybanez Jaum based on
the alleged violation of his constitutional right to speedy
disposition of cases:35

In contrast to the abovementioned cases, the

attendant circumstances in these cases do not show a
deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. ~

32

33
34

35
p. 366, Record
pp. 368-371, Record
pp. 334-339, Record
pp. 379-384, Record
i /'

FD
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et ai.

prosecution appropriately explained the circumstances

surrounding the drafting of the two (2) Informations
against the ten (10) respondents, all of whom were
accorded their constitutional right to be heard. Based
thereon, this Court does not find that the proceedings
before the Office of the Ombudsman were attended by
any vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.36

The Court finds that accused-movant Jaum is not

similarly situated as the petitioners in CoscoZZueZa.

In CoscoZZueZa, the Supreme Court found that the

reason for the delay of the termination of the
preliminary investigation remained unjustified. In these
cases, the prosecution points out that the preliminary
investigation involved ten (10) respondents who were all
amply afforded the opportunity to fully explain their
side.

Notably, the Supreme Court held in the case of

Tan v. PeopZe37 that the task of the pillars of the
criminal justice system is to preserve our democratic
society under the rule of law, by ensuring that all those
who appear before or are brought to the bar of justice
are afforded a fair opportunity to present their side.
Moreover, unlike the petitioners in CoscoZZueZa
who were unaware that an investigation against them
was still on-going,38accused-movant Jaum knew of the
pendency of the case against him. In fact, the record
shows that the same accused-movant filed his Counter-
Affidavitbefore the Officeof the Ombudsman as early as
2011.39 Thus, he could have asserted his right to speedy
disposition of cases or move for an early resolution of
his case before the Office of the Ombudsman in order to
safeguard his rights.~ ~

36
37
pp. 9-10, Resolution promulgated on January 9,
586 SCRA 139 (2009)
201~.l:-338, Record
r
~
\l
38 p. 198, Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, 701 SCRA 188 (2013)
39 pp. 129-144, Record

40 pp. 8-9, Resolution promulgated on February 7,2017; pp. 382-383, Record

Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-l6-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et al.

The Court does not see any sound reason to depart from
the aforesaid finding with respect to accused Sarigumba.
The accused-movant's reliance on the Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan, First Division in People v. Relampagos41 is
misplaced. It is settled that only rulings and decisions of the
Supreme Court can serve as binding preceden ts to the
determinations made by the Sandiganbayan.

In the consolidated cases of People v. Sandiganbayan,

First and Third Division and People v. Sandiganbayan,
Second Division,42 the Supreme Court ruled that the fact-
finding investigation should not be deemed separate from the
preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the
Ombudsman if the aggregate time spent for both constitutes
inordinate and oppressive delay in the disposition of any case. 43
However, it must be underscored that the Supreme Court
included the duration of the fact-finding investigation in the
determination of the existence of inordinate delay since the
State miserably failed to prove that the delay in the fact-finding
investigation and the preliminary investigation was reasonable.

Here, the factual circumstances are not the same as those

in the above-mentioned case.

Moreover, the prosecution aptly points to the fact that the

accused-movant failed to assert his right to speedy disposition
of cases.44 In Barcelona v. Tan,45 the Supreme Court ruled
that the right to speedy disposition of cases is lost unless
seasonably invoked, thus:

The right to a speedy trial, as well as other rights

conferred by the Constitution or statute, may be waived
except when otherwise expressly provided by law. One's
right to the speedy disposition of his case m~

tb
41 SB-15-CRM-283, June 23,2016 / '
42712 SCRA 359 (2013)
43 Emphasis supplied
44 pp. 366-377, Record

45724 SCRA 133 (2014)

Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et al.

therefore be asserted. Due to the failure of

petitioner to assert this right, he is considered to
have waived it.46

Thus, just like his co-accused, the accused-movant must

also be deemed to have waived the said right for his failure to
assert it with reasonable promptitude.
Anent the Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable
Cause) the Court finds this to be a mere superfluity. In De Los
Santos-Dio v. Court of Appeals, 47 the Supreme Court ruled:

The second is one made by the judge to ascertain

whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against
the accused. In this respect, the judge must satisfy
himself that, on the basis of the evidence submitted,
there is a necessity for placing the accused under
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If
the judge, therefore, finds no probable cause, the judge
cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant. 48 Notably,
since the judge is already duty-bound to determine
the existence or non-existence of probable cause
for the arrest of the accused immediately upon the
filing of the information, the filing of a motion for
judicial determination of probable cause becomes a
mere superfluity,49 if not a deliberate attempt to
cut short the process by asking the judge to weigh
in on the evidence without a full-blown trial.5o

Finally, in his bid to dismiss these cases, the accused-

movant asserts the following:

Palanca, which w~

46 Emphasis supplied

4~
47699 SeRA 614 (2013)
48 Footnote omitted
49 Footnote omitted
50 Emphasis supplied
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et ai.

basis of the complaint filed before the Office of the

Ombudsman-Visayas, alleged the participation of
Accused Sarigumba in the alleged crime as follows:

That Mr. Lorenzo T. Sarigumba, SAC Chairman

who inspected the alleged delivery of spare parts
of Mini Dump Truck and Multicab, per inspection
and acceptance report;
xxx"

16. It is worthy to note that the aforementioned action

is necessary as well as incidental to the Accused
Sarigumba's job as BAC Chairman. Thus, the said act
does not, by any standard, constitute a crime.

17. Anent the issue of lack of biddings, records will

show that competitive biddings were done away with in
the intstant [sic] case, considering the fact that all three
purchases did not exceed the Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (Php250,OOO.OO)limit. Besides, to
assure .that the purchase were the lowest price
available, quotations from three different suppliers were.
procured and duly documented and cross-checked by
Accused Sarigumba's fellowBACmembers.

18. After the purchase order was given to the lowest

bidder (RDAK), the delivery was made within the
prescribed period. Accused Sarigumba, in accordance
with his functions as BAC Chairman, inspected the
delivery of the ordered spare parts in accordance with
the requisition and the Program of Works, and found
out that all were in order, and regular. That as proof of
the regular deliveries of these spare parts, the
University now has a fully operational mini dump truck
and multicab, which services its needs.

19. Herein Accused submits that there exists no

probable cause to indict him for the offense charged.

21. Based on the foregoing, there is clearly no probable

cause to hold Accused Sarigumba for trial b cau~
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et al.

elements of the offense charged were not established,

particularly the second and third elements which
requires that the accused must have acted with
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence and damage or injury to the
government. Besides, the act of the Accused of signing
the checks despite it being his ministerial function
cannot be considered as probable cause to indict him of
the offense charge[d]. Further, it has not been
sufficiently proven that the Accused acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. Lastly, there is no damage or injury on the
part of the government.51

The Court finds the consideration of the said defenses

premature.

Jurisprudence abounds holding that the presence or

absence of the elements of the crime charged is evidentiary in
nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after
a full-blown trial on the merits and that the validity or merits of
a party's defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of
testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial
proper. 52

To be sure, the Court cannot rule at this early stage of the

proceedings on the presence or absence of the elements of the
crime charged. In People v. Castillo,53 the Supreme Court
ruled:

Moreover, it was clearly premature on the part

of the Sandiganbayan to make a determinative
finding prior to the parties' presentation of their
respective evidence that there was no bad fait~

" pp. 317-318, Reco'd

52 Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,
rYi /
478 SCRA 348 (2005); See also Unilever v. T~-45'SCRA 36 (2014),
'(\
United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko, 534 SCRA 322 (2007), People v. Yecyec 739 SCRA 719 (2014),
Clay and Feather International, Inc. v. Lichaytoo, 649 SCRA 516 (2011) and Lee v. KBC Bank N.V., 610
SCRA 117 (2010).
53590 SCRA 95 (2009)
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et al.

and manifest partiality on the respondents' part

and undue injury on the part of the complainant.
In Go v. Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan,S4 we held
that "it is well established that the presence or
absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary
in nature and is a matter of defense that may be
best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the
merits. "55 Also, it would be unfair to expect the
prosecution to present all the evidence needed to
secure the conviction of the accused upon the filing of
the information against the latter. The reason is found
in the nature and objective of a preliminary
investigation. Here, the public prosecutors do not
decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the person charged; they merely
determine whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial.

WHEREFORE, accused-movant Lorenzo T. Sarigumba's

Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Judicial Determination of
Probable Cause dated December 19, 2016 is DENIED for utter
lack of merit.

Quezon City, Metro Manila

54521 seRA 270 (2007)

55 Emphasis supplied
Resolution
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0773-0774
People vs. Magante, et aI.