2001 / Nov
A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN. November 28, 2001
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC, November 28, 2001 ]
RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN.
R E S O L U T I O N
PARDO, J.:
Submitted to the Court for consideration is a resolution of the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereafter, the IBP) recommending an inquiry into the causes of delays in the resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases pending before the Sandiganbayan.
On July 31, 2000, the IBP, through its National President, Arthur D. Lim, transmitted to the Court a Resolution[1]addressing the problem of delays in cases pending before the Sandiganbayan (hereafter, the Resolution).[2]We quote the Resolution in full:[3]
"WHEREAS,Section 16, Article III of the Constitution guarantees that, "[a]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies,"On August 8, 2000, the Court required Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena to comment on the letter of the IBP and to submit a list of all Sandiganbayan cases pending decision, or with motion for reconsideration pending resolution, indicating the dates they were deemed submitted for decision or resolution.[4]
"WHEREAS,Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers mandates that "[a] lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice;"
"WHEREAS,it is the duty of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to undertake measures to assist in the speedy disposition of cases pending before the various courts and tribunals;
"WHEREAS,the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has received numerous complaints from its members about serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan;
"WHEREAS,Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 requires all Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts to submit to the Supreme Court a bi-annual report indicating the title of the case, its date of filing, the date of pre-trial in civil cases and arraignment in criminal cases, the date of initial trial, the date of last hearing and the date that the case is submitted for decision, and to post, in a conspicuous place within its premises, a monthly list of cases submitted for decision;
"WHEREAS,Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not been made applicable to the Sandiganbayan;
"WHEREAS,considering that the Sandiganbayan is also a trial court, the requirements imposed upon trial courts by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 should also be imposed upon the Sandiganbayan;
"NOW, THEREFORE,in view of the foregoing, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines hereby resolves as follows:
"1. To recommend to the Supreme Court that Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 be made applicable to the Sandiganbayan in regard cases over which the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction; and
"2. To recommend to the Supreme Court an inquiry into the causes of delay in the resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases before the Sandiganbayan for the purpose of enacting measures intended at avoiding such delays.
"Done in Los Baños, Laguna, this 29thday of July, 2000."
On September 27, 2000, complying with the order, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a report[5](hereafter, the compliance) admitting a number of cases submitted for decision and motion for reconsideration pending resolution before its divisions. We quote:
Thus, the Sandiganbayan has a total of four hundred fifteen (415) cases for decision remaining undecided long beyond the reglementary period to decide, with one case submitted as early as May 24, 1990,[7]and motion for reconsideration which has remained unresolved over thirty days from submission.[8]
W/ Motions For Reconsideration "For Decision 341 None 5 None 12 None 5 None 52 1 415"[6]
On October 20, 2000, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a "schedule of cases submitted for decision, the schedule indicating the number of detained prisoners, of which there are (were) none."[9]
On October 26, 2000, the IBP submitted its reply to the compliance stating:First, that it was not in a position to comment on the accuracy of the compliance; nonetheless, it showed that there was much to be desired with regard to the expeditious disposition of cases, particularly in the Sandiganbayan's First Division, where cases submitted for decision since 1990 remained unresolved.Second, the compliance did not include pending motions, and it is a fact that motions not resolved over a long period of time would suspend and delay the disposition of a case.Third, since the Sandiganbayan is a trial court, it is required to submit the same reports required of Regional Trial Courts.Fourth, the Constitution[10]states that, "all lower collegiate courts" must decide or resolve cases or matters before it within twelve (12) months "from date of submission"; however, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is required to resolve and decide cases within a reduced period of three (3) months like regional trial courts, or at the most, six (6) months from date of submission.[11]
On November 21, 2000, the Court resolved to direct then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo (hereafter, the OCA) "to conduct a judicial audit of the Sandiganbayan, especially on the cases subject of this administrative matter, and to submit a report thereon not later than 31 December 2000."[12]
On December 4, 2000, in a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that the First Division of the Sandiganbayan[13]has a backlog of cases; that one case[14]alone made the backlog of the First Division so large, involving 156 cases but the same has been set for promulgation of decision on December 8, 2000, which would reduce the backlog by at least fifty percent (50%).[15]
On January 26, 2001, the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum to the Court[16]stating that the causes of delay in the disposition of cases before the Sandiganbayan are:[17]
We considerex mero motuthe Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as an administrative complaint against Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena for "serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan," amounting to incompetence, inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and misconduct in office.
We find no need to conduct a formal investigation of the charges in view of the admission of Justice Francis E. Garchitorena in his compliance of October 20, 2000, that there are indeed hundreds of cases pending decision beyond the reglementary period of ninety (90) days from their submission. In one case, he not only admitted the delay in deciding the case but took sole responsibility for such inaction for more than ten (10) years that constrained this Court to grant mandamus to dismiss the case against an accused to give substance and meaning to his constitutional right to speedy trial.[18]
The issues presented are the following: (1) What is the reglementary period within which the Sandiganbayan must decide/resolve cases falling within its jurisdiction? (2) Are there cases submitted for decision remaining undecided by the Sandiganbayan or any of its divisions beyond the afore-stated reglementary period? (3) Is Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1094 applicable to the Sandiganbayan?[19]
We resolve the issues presentedinseriatim.
1. Period To Decide/Resolve Cases.--There are two views. The first view is that from the time a case is submitted for decision or resolution, the Sandiganbayan has twelve (12) months to decide or resolve it.[20]The second view is that as a court with trial function, the Sandiganbayan has three (3) months to decide the case from the date of submission for decision.[21]
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 Constitution provides:
"Sec. 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission to the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.The above provision does not apply to the Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to regular courts of lower collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of Appeals.[23]
"(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself."[22]
The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice,[24]with functions of a trial court.[25]
Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one.[26]The Sandiganbayan was originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of procedure.[27]However, on March 30, 1995, Congress repealed the Sandiganbayan's power to promulgate its own rules of procedure[28]and instead prescribed that the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan.[29]
"Special courts are judicial tribunals exercising limited jurisdiction over particular or specialized categories of actions. They are the Court of Tax Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Shari'a Courts."[30]
Under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution "Rules of procedure ofspecial courtsand quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court."
In his report, the Court Administrator would distinguish between cases which the Sandiganbayan has cognizance of in its original jurisdiction,[31]and cases which fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.[32]The Court Administrator posits that since in the first class of cases, the Sandiganbayan acts more as a trial court, then for that classification of cases, the three (3) month reglementary period applies. For the second class of cases, the Sandiganbayan has the twelve-month reglementary period for collegiate courts.[33]We do not agree.
The law creating the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 1606[34]is clear on this issue.[35]It provides:
"Sec. 6. Maximum period for termination of cases - As far as practicable, the trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan once commenced shall be continuous until terminated and the judgment shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision."On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules,[36]thus:[37]
"Sec. 3Maximum Period to Decide Cases- The judgment or final order of a division of the Sandiganbayan shall be renderedwithin three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision(underscoring ours)."Given the clarity of the rule that does not distinguish, we hold that the three (3) month period, not the twelve (12) month period, to decide cases applies to the Sandiganbayan. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan presently sitting in five (5) divisions,[38]functions as a trial court. The term "trial" is used in its broad sense, meaning, it allows introduction of evidence by the parties in the cases before it.[39]The Sandiganbayan, in original cases within its jurisdiction, conducts trials, has the discretion to weigh the evidence of the parties, admit the evidence it regards as credible and reject that which they consider perjurious or fabricated.[40]
InDepartment of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) v. Court of Appeals,[41]the Court faulted the DARAB forviolatingits own rules of procedure. We reasoned that the DARAB does not have unfettered discretion to suspend its own rules. We stated that the DARAB "should have set the example of observance of orderly procedure." Otherwise, it would render its own Revised Rules of Procedure uncertain and whose permanence would be dependent upon the instability of its own whims and caprices.
Similarly, inCabagnot v. Comelec,[42]this Court held that the Commission on Elections ought to be the first one to observe its own Rules. Its departure from its own rules constitutes "arrogance of power" tantamount to abuse. Such inconsistency denigrates public trust in its objectivity and dependability. The Court reminded the Comelec to be more judicious in its actions and decisions and avoid imprudentvolte-facemoves that undermine the public's faith and confidence in it.
Theratio decidendiin the afore-cited cases appliesmutatis mutandisto the Sandiganbayan.The Sandiganbayan ought to be the first to observe its own rules. It cannot suspend its rules, or except a case from its operation.
2. Undecided Cases Beyond the Reglementary Period.--We find that the Sandiganbayan has several cases undecided beyond the reglementary period set by the statutes and its own rules, some as long as more than ten (10) years ago.
According to the compliance submitted by the Sandiganbayan, three hundred and forty one (341) cases were submitted for decision but were undecided as of September 15, 2000. A number of the cases were submitted for decision asfar back as more than ten (10) years ago. As of September 15, 2000, the following cases[43]had not been decided:[44]
First Division
| Case Title | Case No. | Date Submitted for Decision |
| (1) People v. Pañares | 12127 | May 24, 1990 |
| (2) People v. Gabriel Duero | 11999 | December 11, 1990 |
| (3) People v. Rhiza Monterozo | 133533 | December 14, 1990 |
| (4) People v. Zenon R. Perez | 13353 | January 7, 1991 |
| (5) People v. Bernardo B. Dayao, Jr. | 12305-12306 | February 7, 1991 |
| (6) People v. Melquiades Ribo | 13521 | May 7, 1991 |
| (7) People v. Carlos Benitez | 12102 | June 19, 1991 |
| (8) People v. Salvador P. Nopre, et. al. | 11156-11160 | August 9, 1991 |
| (9) People v. Delfina A. Letegio | 12289 | August 28, 1991 |
| (10) People v. Rodolfo A. Lasquite | 13618 | August 28, 1991 |
| (11) People v. Potenciana Evangelista | 13679-13680 | September 3, 1991 |
| (12) People v. Ramon N. Guico, Jr. et. al | 16516 | December 2, 1991 |
| (13) People v. Ruperto N. Solares | 16239 | January 10, 1992 |
| (14) People v. Socorro Alto | 13708 | March 9, 1992 |
| (15) People v. Tomas Baguio | 130151 | March 11, 1992 |
| (16) People v. Felipa D. de Veyra | 13672 | April 13, 1992 |
| (17) People v. Felicidad Tabang | 12139 | July 23, 1992 |
| (18) People v. Jose S. Buguiña | 14227 | September 9, 1992 |
| (19) People v. Eleno T. Regidor, et al. | 13689-13695 | January 6, 1993 |
| (20) People v. Serafin Unilongo | 14411 | February 2, 1993 |
| (21) People v. Manuel Parale, et al. | 15168 | June 21, 1993 |
| (22) People v. Robert P. Wa-acon | 14375 | June 21, 1993 |
| (23) People v. Linda J. Necessito | 13668 | July 13, 1993 |
| (24) People v. Simon Flores | 16946 | August 4, 1993 |
| (25) People v. Alejandro F. Buccat | 14986 | August 31, 1993 |
| (26) People v. Irma Collera Monge | 15301 | March 9, 1994 |
| (27) People v. Melencio F. Ilajas | 9977 | May 10, 1994 |
| (28) People v. Buenaventura Q. Sindac, et al. | 13747-13748 | August 19, 1994 |
| (29) People v. Jesus A. Bravo | 17514 | August 24, 1994 |
| (30) People v. Raul S. Tello | 15006 | November 15, 1994 |
| (31) People v. Celso N. Jacinto | 14975 | January 10, 1995 |
| (32) People v. Mayor Antonio Abad Santos, et al. | 17670 | January 24, 1995 |
| (33) People v. Lamberto R. Te | 20588 | February 14, 1995 |
| (34) People v. Ale Francisco | 21020 | July 18, 1995 |
| (35) People v. Dir. Felix R. Gonzales, et al. | 13563 | July 25, 1995 |
| (36) People v. Mayor Adelina Gabatan, et al. | 14324 | January 3, 1996 |
| (37) People v. Victoria Posadas-Adona | 17202 | January 4, 1996 |
| (38) People v. Roberto Estanislao Chang, et al. | 16854 | January 22, 1996 |
| (39) People v. Godofredo Yambao, et al. | 16927-16928 | March 13, 1996 |
| (40) People v. Honesto G. Encina | 13171 | April 26, 1996 |
| (41) People v. Pablito Rodriguez | 13971 | May 10, 1996 |
| (42) People v. Leandro A. Suller | 17759 | June 28, 1996 |
| (43) People v. Trinidad M. Valdez | 16695 | August 26, 1996 |
| (44) People v. Vivencio B. Patagoc | 19651 | January 27, 1997 |
| (45) People v. Engr. Antonio B. Laguador | 14195 | March 31, 1997 |
| (46) People v. Paterno C. Belciña, Jr. | 16583-16585 | March 31, 1997 |
| (47) People v. SPO3 Serafin V. Reyes | 21608 | March 31, 1997 |
| (48) People v. Mayor Samuel F. Bueser, et al. | 22195-22196 | March 31, 1997 |
| (49) People v. Romeo C. Monteclaro | 14223 | May 6, 1997 |
| (50) People v. Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo | 20948-20949 | October 17, 1997 |
| (51) People v. Aniceto M. Sobrepeña | 23324 | October 27, 1997 |
| (52) People v. Marietta T. Caugma, et al. | 17001 | November 26, 1997 |
| (53) People v. Mayor Meliton Geronimo, et al. | 19708 | February 23, 1998 |
| (54) People v. Fernando Miguel, et al. | 17600 | April 7, 1998 |
| (55) People v. Rogelio A. Aniversario | 17601 | April 7, 1998 |
| (56) People v. Corazon Gammad Leaño | 9812-9967 | May 8, 1998 |
| (57) People v. Teresita S. Lazaro | 17901 | June 8, 1998 |
| (58) People v. Brig. Gen. Raymundo Jarque, et al. | 20688 | October 19, 1998 |
| (59) People v. Pros. Filotea Estorninos | 23509 | October 19, 1998 |
| (60) People v. Orlando Mina | 19534-19545 | October 20, 1998 |
| (61) People v. Vice Gov. Milagros A. Balgos | 23042 | October 20, 1998 |
| (62) People v. Ceferino Paredes, Jr., et al. | 18857 | November 17, 1998 |
| (63) People v. Brig. Gen. Rayundo Jarque, et al. | 18696 | January 15, 1999 |
| (64) People v. Mayor Agustin R. Escaño, Jr. | 23336 | January 15, 1999 |
| (65) People v. Mayor Edgar V. Teves, et al. | 23374 | January 15, 1999 |
| (66) People v. C/Supt. Alfonso T. Clemente, et al. | 22832 | January 29, 1999 |
| (67) People v. Dominica Santos | 19059-19063 | February 18, 1999 |
| (68) People v. Edith G. Tico | 23273 | April 20, 1999 |
| (69) People v. Sec. Hilarion J. Ramiro, et al. | 23511 | August 6, 1999 |
| (70) People v. Timoteo A. Garcia, et al. | 24042-24098 | August 6, 1999 |
| (71) People v. Mayor Jeceju L. Manaay | 24402 | August 6, 1999 |
| (72) People v. Dir. Rosalinda Majarais, et al. | 24355 | August 18, 1999 |
| (73) People v. Victor S. Limlingan | 24281 | August 13, 1999 |
| (74) People v. Nestor S. Castillo, et al. | 24631 | August 31, 1999 |
| (75) People v. Apolinar Candelaria | 22145 | September 6, 1999 |
| (76) People v. Bernardo Billote Resoso | 19773-19779 | October 11, 1999 |
| (77) People v. Atty. Alfredo Fordan Rellora, et al. | 24433-24434 | October 11, 1999 |
| (78) People v. Faustino Balacuit | 98 | December 22, 1999 |
| (79) People v. Mayor Bernardino Alcaria, Jr., et al. | 23418-23423 | January 6, 2000 |
| (80) People v. Joel R. Lachica, et al. | 24319-24329 | January 6, 2000 |
| (81) People v. Jose Micabalo, et al. | 24531-24534 | April 27, 2000 |
| (82) People v. Mayor Eduardo Alarilla | 23069 | May 29, 2000 |
| (83) People v. Pros. Nilo M. Sarsaba, et al. | 23323 | May 29, 2000 |
| (84) People v. Philip G. Zamora | 24150 | May 29, 2000 |
Second Division*
| Case Title | Case No. | Date Submitted for Decision |
| (1) People v. Marcelino Cordova, et al. | 18435 | August 11, 2000 |
| (2) People v. Benjamin T. Damian | 22858 | August 11, 2000 |
| (3)People v. Lino L. Labis, et al. | 22398 | July 18, 2000 |
| (4)People v. Alfredo Sarmiento, et al. | 24407-24408 | August 11, 2000 |
Third Division**
| Case Title | Case No. | Date Submitted for Decision |
| (1) People v. Sergia Zoleta | A/R # 016 | November 16, 1999 |
| (2) People v. Manuel Solon Y Tenchaves | A/R # 029 | December 9, 1999 |
| (3) People v. Eliseo L. Ruiz | 13861-13863 | April 6, 2000 |
| (4) People v. Manuel R. Galvez, et al. | 13889 | September 30, 1999 |
| (5) People v. Tolentino Mendoza, et al. | 16756 | August 28, 1999 |
| (6) People v. Rodrigo Villas | 19563 | April 6, 2000 |
| (7) People v. Ernesto Vargas | 19574 | April 6, 2000 |
| (8) People v. Ernesto, Vargas, et al. | 20053 | April 6, 2000 |
| (9) People v. Marcelo T. Abrenica, et al. | 23522 | July 6, 2000 |
| (10) People v. Florencio Garay, et al. | 25657 | May 5, 200 |
Fourth Division***
| Case Title | Case No. | Date Submitted for Decision |
| (1) People v. Jaime Alos, et Al. | 17664 | August 31, 1999 |
| (2) People v. Antonio R. De Vera | 23366 | November 26, 1999 |
| (3) People v. Aurora Mantele | 24841-42 | May 9, 2000 |
| (4) People v. Olegario Clarin, Jr., et al. | 25198 | July 12, 2000 |
Fifth Division****
| Case Title | Case No. | Date Submitted for Decision |
| (1) People v. Nestor A. Pablo | 13344 | January 16, 1998 |
| (2) People v. Hernand D. Dabalus, et al. | 14397 | January 13, 1999 |
| (3) People v. Eduardo Pilapil | 16672 | March 23, 2000 |
| (4) People v. P/Sgt. Nazario Marifosque | 17030 | April 16, 1998 |
| (5) People v. Ignacio B. Bueno | 17055 | September 12, 1995 |
| (6) People v. Corazon G. Garlit | 17072 | March 31, 1997 |
| (7) People v. Mayor Rufo Pabelonia, et al. | 17538 | November 14, 1995 |
| (8) People v. Enrique B. Lenon, et al. | 17617 | March 13, 1996 |
| (9) People v. Constancio Bonite, et al. | 17618-17619 | May 1, 1995 |
| (10) People v. Jesus Villanueva | 17884 | January 9, 1996 |
| (11) People v. Ricardo T. Liwanag, et al. | 18008 | March 9, 1998 |
| (12) People v. Ma. Lourdes L. Falcon | 18036 | January 18, 1995 |
| (13) People v. Luis D. Montero, et al. | 18684 | July 24, 1998 |
| (14) People v. Roel D. Morales | 18699 | December 22, 1995 |
| (15) People v. Diosdado T. Gulle | 18759 | October 18, 1995 |
| (16) People v. Benjamin Sapitula, et al. | 18785 | August 31, 1995 |
| (17) People v. Danilo R. Santos, et al. | 18932 | November 4, 1997 |
| (18) People v. Pat. Danilo Marañon | 19039 | May 24, 1995 |
| (19) People v. Romeo Cabando, et al. | 19378-19379 | May 27, 1996 |
| (20) People v. SPO2 Rodolfo Burbos | 19593 | July 6, 1998 |
| (21) People v. Guillermo M. Viray, et al. | 19614 | August 31, 1998 |
| (22) People v. Mayor Bonifacio Balahay | 20427 | November 5, 1999 |
| (23) People v. Enrique Sy, et al. | 20487 | December 17, 1998 |
| (24) People v. PO2 Manuel L. Bien | 20648-20649 | March 31, 1998 |
| (25) People v. Felipe L. Laodenio | 23066 | September 28, 1999 |
| (26) People v. Mayor Walfrido A. Siasico | 23427 | January 16, 1998 |
The Sandiganbayan is a special court created "in an effort to maintain honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy, weed out misfits and undesirables in the government and eventually stamp out graft and corruption."[45]We have held consistently that a delay of three (3) years in decidinga singlecase is inexcusably long.[46]We can not accept the excuses of Presiding Justice Sandiganbayan Francis E. Garchitorena that the court was reorganized in 1997; that the new justices had to undergo an orientation and that the Sandiganbayan relocated to its present premises which required the packing and crating of records; and that some boxes were still unopened.[47]
We likewise find unacceptable Presiding Justice Garchitorena's excuse that one case alone[48]comprises more that fifty percent (50%) of the First Division's backlog and that the same has been set for promulgation on December 8, 2000.[49]As we said, a delay ina single casecannot be tolerated,"para muestra, basta un boton." (for an example, one button suffices).It is admitted that there are several other cases submitted for decision as far back as ten (10) years ago that have remained undecided by the First Division, of which Justice Garchitorena is presiding justice and chairman. Indeed, there is even one case, which is a simple motion to withdraw the information filed by the prosecutor. This has remained unresolved for more than seven (7) years (since 1994).[50]The compliance submitted by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice incriminates him. The memorandum submitted by the Court Administrator likewise testifies to the unacceptable situation in the Sandiganbayan. Indeed, there is a disparity in the reports submitted by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice and the OCA. According to the Court Administrator, the cases submitted for decision that were still pending promulgation[51]before the five divisions of the Sandiganbayan are:[52]
First Division
Case Number Date Submitted Criminal Cases 1. 11156 8/9/91 2. 11157 8/9/91 3. 11158 8/9/91 4. 11159 8/9/91 5. 11160 8/9/91 6. 11999 12/10/90 7. 12102 7/1/91 8. 12127 2/12/90 9. 12139 6/10/92 10. 12289 8/28/91 11. 12305 2/7/91 12. 12306 2/7/91 13. 13015 3/2/92 14. 13171 11/16/95 15. 13353 10/6/90 16. 13521 12/12/99 17. 13563 7/4/95 18. 13618 7/14/91 19. 13668 6/13/93 20. 13672 3/5/92 21. 13679 8/6/91 22. 13680 8/6/91 23. 13689 11/14/92 24. 13690 11/14/92 25. 13691 11/14/92 26. 13692 11/14/92 27. 13693 11/14/92 28. 13694 11/14/92 29. 13695 11/14/92 30. 13708 3/9/92 31. 13747 8/19/94 32. 13748 8/19/94 33. 13971 3/12/95 34. 14223 3/7/97 35. 14227 9/5/92 36. 14230 11/30/90 37. 14287 7/3/94 38. 14324 11/5/95 39. 14375 5/22/95 40. 14411 1/24/93 41. 14975 9/29/94 42. 14986 12/11/92 43. 15006 11/19/94 44. 15168 3/25/93 45. 15301 3/16/94 46. 16239 12/26/91 47. 16516 11/19/91 48. 16583 8/13/96 49. 16584 8/13/96 50. 16585 8/13/96 51. 16695 8/15/96 52. 16854 1/15/96 53. 16927 12/17/95 54. 16928 12/17/95 55. 16946 8/4/93 56. 17001 9/4/97 57. 17278 5/2/94 58. 17447 9/6/94 59. 17448 9/6/94 60. 17514 8/19/94 61. 17600 8/30/97 62. 17601 8/30/97 63. 17670 11/25/94 64. 17759 6/25/96 65. 17901 5/28/98 66. 18283 2/21/95 67. 18696 8/9/98 68. 18857 10/21/98 69. 19059 2/11/99 70. 19060 2/11/99 71. 19061 2/11/99 72. 19062 2/11/99 73. 19063 2/11/99 74. 19534 9/2/98 75. 19535 9/2/98 76. 19651 11/15/96 77. 19708 8/25/98 78. 19773 5/21/99 79. 19774 5/21/99 80. 19775 5/21/99 81. 19976 5/21/99 82. 19977 5/21/99 83. 19978 5/21/99 84. 19979 5/21/99 85. 20588 2/14/95 86. 20688 7/9/98 87. 20948 10/9/97 88. 20949 10/9/97 89. 21020 7/4/95 90. 22145 7/7/99 91. 22195 6/14/96 92. 22196 6/14/96 93. 22832 10/21/98 94. 23042 8/27/98 95. 23146 11/13/00 96. 23273 4/19/99 97. 23323 3/23/00 98. 23324 8/3/97 99. 23336 9/4/97 100. 23374 12/17/98 101. 23418 10/15/99 102. 23419 10/15/99 103. 23420 10/15/99 104. 23421 10/15/99 105. 23422 10/15/99 106. 23423 10/15/99 107. 23509 9/5/98 108. 23511 4/23/99 109. 23540 10/15/99 110. 24042 4/28/99 111. 24043 4/28/99 112. 24044 4/28/99 113. 24045 4/28/99 114. 24046 4/28/99 115. 24047 4/28/99 116. 24048 4/28/99 117. 24049 4/28/99 118. 24050 4/28/99 119. 24051 4/28/99 120. 24052 4/28/99 121. 24053 4/28/99 122. 24054 4/28/99 123. 24055 4/28/99 124. 24056 4/28/99 125. 24057 4/28/99 126. 24058 4/28/99 127. 24059 4/28/99 128. 24060 4/28/99 129. 24061 4/28/99 130. 24062 4/28/99 131. 24063 4/28/99 132. 24064 4/28/99 133. 24065 4/28/99 134. 24066 4/28/99 135. 24067 4/28/99 136. 24068 4/28/99 137. 24069 4/28/99 138. 24070 4/28/99 139. 24071 4/28/99 140. 24072 4/28/99 141. 24073 4/28/99 142. 24074 4/28/99 143. 24075 4/28/99 144. 24076 4/28/99 145. 24077 4/28/99 146. 24078 4/28/99 147. 24079 4/28/99 148. 24080 4/28/99 149. 24081 4/28/99 150. 24082 4/28/99 151. 24083 4/28/99 152. 24084 4/28/99 153. 24085 4/28/99 154. 24086 4/28/99 155. 24087 4/28/99 156. 24088 4/28/99 157. 24089 4/28/99 158. 24090 4/28/99 159. 24091 4/28/99 160. 24092 4/28/99 161. 24093 4/28/99 162. 24094 4/28/99 163. 24095 4/28/99 164. 24096 4/28/99 165. 24097 4/28/99 166. 24098 4/28/99 167. 24150 1/31/00 168. 24236 2/14/00 169. 24237 2/14/00 170. 24281 5/9/99 171. 24319 11/4/99 172. 24320 11/4/99 173. 24321 11/4/99 174. 24322 11/4/99 175. 24323 11/4/99 176. 24324 11/4/99 177. 24325 11/4/99 178. 24326 11/4/99 179. 24327 11/4/99 180. 24328 11/4/99 181. 24329 11/4/99 182. 24339 10/20/00 183. 24355 2/18/99 184. 24395 7/13/99 185. 24402 6/17/99 186. 24433 9/6/99 187. 24434 9/6/99 188. 24531 12/16/99 189. 24532 12/16/99 190. 24533 12/16/99 191. 24534 12/16/99 192. 24631 8/9/99 193. 24768 7/8/00 194. 6672 7/11/90 195. 9977 5/10/94 Civil Case 1. 0112 1/11/92 2. 0116 10/16/91 3. 0156 3/14/97
Second Division
Case No. Date Submitted Criminal Case 1. 19542 4/16/99 2. 19004 9/10/96 3. 22934 10/14/00 4. 20483 8/28/96 5. 20484 8/28/96 6. 23529 10/23/00 7. 23530 10/23/00 8. 23338 12/2/99 9. 18786 11/28/00 10. 19686 07/2/97 11. 184403 12/4/98 12. 184404 12/4/98 13. 184405 12/4/98 14. 184406 12/4/98 15. 184407 12/4/98 16. 184408 12/4/98 17. 184409 12/4/98 18. 184410 12/4/98 19. 184411 12/4/98 20. 184412 12/4/98 21. 184413 12/4/98 22. 184414 12/4/98 23. 184415 12/4/98 24. 184416 12/4/98 25. 184417 12/4/98 26. 13827 8/30/00 27. 13828 8/30/00 28. 13829 8/30/00 29. 13830 8/30/00 30. 13831 8/30/00 31. 13832 8/30/00 32. 18965 11/30/00 33. 19848 3/28/96 34. 20765 8/30/96 35. 20816 3/11/98 36. 19692 8/27/00 37. 19693 8/27/00 38. 19694 8/27/00 39. 19695 8/27/00 40. 19696 8/27/00 41. 19697 8/27/00 42. 19698 8/27/00 43. 19699 8/27/00 44. 19700 8/27/00 45. 19701 8/27/00 46. 19702 8/27/00 47. 19703 8/27/00 48. 19704 8/27/00 49. 19705 8/27/00 50. 19706 8/27/00 51. 19707 8/27/00 52. 23262 10/11/00 53. AR#035 12/9/00 54. 24994 8/17/00 55. 21097 12/13/00 56. 20660 12/20/00 57. 23111 11/27/00 58. 24407 7/27/00 59. 24408 7/27/00 60. 18435 3/21/00 61. 22858 8/4/00 62. 22976 5/4/99 Civil Case 1. 0171 7/10/00
Third Division
Case Number Date Submitted 1.SCA/005 12/18/00 2.A/R 016 8/5/99 3.A/R 029 10/2/00 4.487 4/8/98 5.488 4/8/98 6.489 4/8/98 7.490 4/8/98 8.491 4/8/98 9.11794 6/10/00 10.13861 4/6/00 11. 13862 4/6/00 12. 13863 4/6/00 13. 13889 3/25/99 14. 16756 8/25/99 15. 17532 12/11/00 16. 18867 10/5/00 17. 18868 10/5/00 18. 18869 10/5/00 19. 18870 10/5/00 20. 18871 10/5/00 21. 18872 10/5/00 22. 19182 4/6/00 23. 19563 4/6/00 24. 19574 4/6/00 25. 19622 4/6/00 26. 19623 4/6/00 27. 19624 4/6/00 28. 20053 4/6/00 29. 20054 4/6/00 30. 20271 12/18/00 31. 22143 12/18/00 32. 23014 9/23/00 33. 23522 7/6/00 34. 23699 3/22/00 35. 23700 3/22/00 36. 23701 3/22/00 37. 23802 9/10/00 38. 23803 9/10/00 39. 24153 12/18/00 40. 24697 9/10/00 41. 24698 9/10/00 42. 24741 12/7/00 43. 24779 10/28/00 44. 24780 10/28/00 45. 24781 10/28/00 46. 25657 5/5/00
Fourth Division
Case No. Date Submitted 1. 11960 09/21/98 2.17664 01/29/98 3.13036 02/22/99 4.13037 02/22/99 5.13593 05/21/96 6.13594 05/21/96 7.13757 03/21/97 8.14380 02/14/95 9.16809 03/26/00 10.17015 06/06/94 11.17016 06/06/94 12.17140 06/13/96 13.17141 06/13/96 14.17209 12/27/96 15.17805 02/15/00 16.17806 02/15/00 17.17809 02/15/00 18. 17856 04/02/00 19. 18005 05/07/96 20. 18006 05/07/96 21. 18257 09/22/97 22. 18894 11/17/00 23. 18895 11/17/00 24. 18896 11/17/00 25. 18900 10/28/00 26. 18935 06/16/00 27. 18936 06/16/00 28. 18937 06/16/00 29. 19567 05/21/96 30. 20338 05/19/97 31. 20469 07/07/00 32. 20470 07/07/00 33. 20471 07/07/00 34. 20472 07/07/00 35. 20473 07/07/00 36. 20474 07/07/00 37. 20475 07/07/00 38. 20476 07/07/00 39. 20664 06/29/96 40. 20685 02/18/00 41. 20828 09/13/00 42. 21093 08/07/99 43. 21131 08/04/96 44. 21778 09/29/97 45. 21779 09/29/97 46. 21780 09/29/97 47. 22891 03/02/00 48. 22892 03/02/00 49. 23007 05/24/99 50. 23058 04/27/00 51. 23059 04/27/00 52. 23060 04/27/00 53. 23061 04/27/00 54. 23062 04/27/00 55. 23366 03/28/99 56. 23415 05/25/00 57. 23534 12/15/00 58. 23708 09/27/00 59. 24447 09/18/00 60. 24448 09/18/00 61. 24464 07/26/00 62. 24465 07/26/00 63. 24742 10/10/00 64. 24841 03/22/00 65. 24842 03/22/00 66. 24851 10/29/00 67. 25198 05/31/00 68. 25389 09/26/00 69. 25543 12/27/00 70. 25658 07/28/00
Fifth Division
We find that Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena failed to devise an efficient recording and filing system to enable him to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition. This is his duty on which he failed.[53]
Case Number Date Submitted Criminal Cases 1. 14397 1/4/99 2. 16672 2/13/00 3. 17030 2/19/98 4. 17826 12/9/00 5. 17827 12/9/00 6. 18478 8/21/00 7. 18684 5/29/98 8. 18880 12/6/00 9. 19510 12/4/00 10. 19511 12/4/00 11. 19512 12/4/00 12. 19593 6/5/98 13. 19614 7/31/98 14. 19668 7/26/98 15. 20194 1/8/01 16. 20427 11/3/99 17. 20648 1/4/98 18. 20649 1/4/98 19. 20694 3/11/98 20. 21882 8/12/00 21. 22184 12/16/00 22. 22873 12/4/99 23. 22926 11/13/00 24. 23066 8/16/99 25. 23319 9/30/00 26. 23450 9/16/00 27. 23515 1/29/00 28. 24155 11/30/00 29. 24379 8/27/00 30. 24759 5/5/00 31. 24858 12/28/00
On November 14, 2001, the Court required the Office of the Court Administrator[54]to update its report.[55]
On November 16, 2001, OCA Consultant Pedro A. Ramirez (Justice, Court of Appeals, Retired) submitted a "compliance report" with the Court's order. The compliance report shows that to this day, several cases that were reported pending by the Sandiganbayan on September 26, 2000, and likewise reported undecided by the OCA on January 26, 2001, have not been decided/resolved. We quote the compliance report:[56]
Case Number | Date Submitted | Ponente Assigned | Reason for Not Deciding Case | |
| 194. 11999 | 12/10/90 | Garchitorena | Under study, submitted before the reorganization | |
| 195. 12102 | 7/1/91 | Garchitorena | Under study, submitted before the reorganization | |
| 196. 12127 | 2/12/90 | Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report | ||
| 197. 12139 | 6/10/92 | Castaneda* | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 198. 12289 | 8/28/91 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 199. 12305-06 | 2/7/91 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 200. 13015 | 3/2/92 | Garchitorena | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 201. 13171 | 11/16/95 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 202. 13353 | 10/6/90 | Garchitorena | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 203. 13521 | 12/12/99 | Garchitorena | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 204. 13563 | 7/4/95 | Garchitorena | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 205. 13618 | 7/14/91 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 206. 13668 | 6/13/93 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 207. 13672 | 3/5/92 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 208. 13679-80 | 8/6/91 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 209. 13689-95 | 11/14/92 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 210. 13708 | 3/9/92 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 211. 13747-48 | 8/19/94 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 212. 13971 | 3/12/95 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 213. 14223 | 3/7/97 | Death of accused is unconfirmed and dismissal of the case was held in abeyance.(Ong, J.)* | ||
| 214. 14227 | 9/5/92 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 215. 14230 | 11/30/90 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 216. 14287 | 7/3/94 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 217. 14324 | 11/5/95 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 218. 14375 | 5/22/95 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 219. 14411 | 1/24/93 | Garchitorena | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 220. 14975 | 9/29/94 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 221. 14986 | 12/11/92 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 222. 15006 | 11/19/94 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 223. 15168 | 3/25/93 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 224. 15301 | 3/16/94 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 225. 16239 | 12/26/91 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 226. 16516 | 11/19/91 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 227. 16583-85 | 8/13/96 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 228. 16695 | 8/15/96 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 229. 16854 | 1/15/96 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 230. 16927-28 | 12/17/95 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 231. 16946 | 8/4/93 | Castaneda | Under study submitted before the reorganization | |
| 232. 17001 | 9/4/97 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 233. 17278 | 5/2/94 | Death of accused is unconfirmed and dismissal of the case was held in abeyance.(Ong, J.) | ||
| 234. 17600 | 8/30/97 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 235. 17601 | 8/30/97 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 236. 17759 | 6/25/96 | Ong | Decided and set for promulgation | |
| 237. 17901 | 5/28/98 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 238. 18696 | 8/9/98 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 239. 18857 | 10/21/98 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 240. 19059-63 | 2/11/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 241. 19534-35 | 9/2/98 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 242. 19708 | 8/25/98 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 243. 19773-79 | 5/21/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 244. 20688 | 7/9/98 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 245. 20948 | 10/9/97 | Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report | ||
| 246. 20949 | 10/9/97 | Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report | ||
| 247. 21020 | 7/4/95 | Ong | Set for Promulgation on November 27, 2001 | |
| 248. 22145 | 7/7/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 249. 22195-96 | 6/14/96 | Castaneda | Under study, submitted before the reorganization | |
| 250. 22832 | 10/21/98 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 251. 23042 | 8/27/98 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 252. 23146 | 11/13/00 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 253. 23273 | 4/19/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 254. 23323 | 3/23/00 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 255. 23324 | 8/3/97 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 256. 23336 | 9/4/97 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 257. 23374 | 12/17/98 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 258. 23418-23 | 10/15/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 259. 23509 | 9/5/98 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 260. 23511 | 4/23/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 261. 23540 | 10/15/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 262. 24042-98 | 4/28/99 | Ong | Set for Promulgation on November 27, 2001 | |
| 263. 24150 | 1/31/00 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 264. 24236-37 | 2/14/00 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 265. 24281 | 5/9/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 266. 24319-29 | 11/4/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 267. 24319-29 | 11/4/99 | Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report | ||
| 268. 24355 | 2/18/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 269. 24395 | 7/13/99 | Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report | ||
| 270. 24402 | 6/17/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 271. 24433-34 | 9/6/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 272. 24531-34 | 12/16/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 273. 24631 | 8/9/99 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 274. 24768 | 7/8/00 | Not yet assigned | ||
| 275. 6672 | 7/11/90 | Garchitorena | Under Study, before the reorganization | |
| 276. 9977 | 5/10/94 | Garchitorena | Under Study, before the reorganization | |
| 277. 0112 | 1/11/92 | Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report | ||
| 278. 0116 | 10/16/91 | Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report | ||
| 279. 0156 | 3/14/97 | Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report | ||
Summary/Tally | ||
| Cases Assigned to Garchitorena, PJ. | 9 | |
Cases Assigned to Castaneda, J. | 42 | |
Cases Assigned to Ong, J. | 5 | |
Cases not yet assigned | 73 | |
| Cases not accounted for or reported | 9 | |
------- | ||
| Total | 138 |
Second Division
| Case Number | Date Submitted | Ponente Assigned | Reason for Not Deciding Case |
| 63. 19542 | 4/16/99 | For retaking of testimony due to incomplete TSN | |
| 64. 13827-32 | 8/30/00 | Victorino | For promulgation |
| 65. 18965 | 11/30/00 | For retaking of testimony due to incomplete TSN |
Third Division
| Case Number | Date Submitted | Ponente Assigned | Reason for Not Deciding Case |
| 47. SCA/005 | 12/18/00 | Ilarde | -- |
| 48. A/R 029 | 10/2/00 | Illarde | |
| 49. 487-491 | 4/8/98 | With pending demurrer to evidence, submitted, 01/26/01 re Submitted, 03/20/01 | |
| 50. 11794 | 6/10/00 | De Castro | -- |
| 51. 17532 | 12/11/00 | Ilarde | -- |
| 52. 18867-72 | 10/5/00 | Pending trial per order dated 08/17/00 | |
| 53. 19182 | 4/6/00 | Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97 | |
| 54. 19563 | 4/6/00 | No Assignment | -- |
| 55. 19574 | 4/6/00 | No Assignment | -- |
| 56. 19622-24 | 4/6/00 | Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97 | |
| 57. 20053-54 | 4/6/00 | Not with the 3rd Division | |
| 58. 20271 | 12/18/00 | Illarde | -- |
| 59. 22143 | 12/18/00 | De Castro | -- |
| 60. 23014 | 9/23/00 | De Castro | -- |
| 61. 23699-701 | 3/22/00 | Ilarde | -- |
| 62. 23802-03 | 9/10/00 | No Assignment | -- |
| 63. 24153 | 12/18/00 | No Assignment | -- |
| 64. 24697-98 | 9/10/00 | Ilarde | -- |
| 65. 24741 | 12/7/00 | De Castro | -- |
| 66. 24779-81 | 10/28/00 | No Assignment | -- |
| 67. 25657 | 5/5/00 | With Defense pending motion for the re-examination of the Information and the parties' affidavits, etc. Order dated 08/31/01 |
Summary/Tally | ||
| Cases Assigned to Illarde, J. | 9 | |
Cases Assigned to De Castro, J. | 4 | |
Cases not yet assigned | 8 | |
| Others | 18 | |
------- | ||
| Total | 39 |
Fourth Division**
| Case Number | Date Submitted | Ponente Assigned | Reason for Not Deciding Case |
71. 11960 | 09/21/98 | Draft of decision penned by J. Nario in view of the dissenting opinion of one Justice was referred to a Division of five (5) composed of Nario, Palattao, Ferrer, Badoy, Jr. and De Castro, JJ. | |
| 72. 16809 | 03/26/00 | Palattao | -- |
| 73. 23058-62 | 04/27/00 | Nario | -- |
| 74. 25389 | 09/26/00 | Nario | -- |
Fifth Division
| Case Number | Date Submitted | Ponente Assigned | Reason for Not Deciding Case |
| 32. 14397 | 1/4/99 | Badoy, Jr. | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 33. 16672 | 2/13/00 | Badoy, Jr. | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 34. 17030 | 2/19/98 | Badoy, Jr. | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 35. 18478 | 8/21/00 | Estrada | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 36. 18684 | 5/29/98 | Badoy, Jr. | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 37. 18880 | 12/6/00 | Badoy, Jr. | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 38. 19510-12 | 12/4/00 | Estrada | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 39. 19593 | 6/5/98 | Badoy, Jr. | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 40. 19614 | 7/31/98 | Badoy, Jr. | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 41. 20194 | 1/8/01 | Chico-Nazario | Complicated Issues |
| 42. 20427 | 11/3/99 | Badoy, Jr. | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 43. 20648-49 | 1/4/98 | Badoy, Jr. | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 44. 20694 | 3/11/98 | Estrada | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 45. 22926 | 11/13/00 | No report, Unaccounted for by the Sandiganbayan report | |
| 46. 23066 | 8/16/99 | Badoy, Jr. | Inherited case/lack of personnel |
| 47. 24155 | 11/30/00 | Estrada | Not yet due |
| 48. 24379 | 8/27/00 | Estrada | Draft decision released 7/31/01 |
Summary/Tally | ||
| Cases Assigned to Badoy, J.*** | 11 | |
Cases Assigned to Estrada, J. | 7 | |
Cases Assigned to Chico-Nazario, J. | 1 | |
| No report/Unaccounted For | 1 | |
------- | ||
| Total | 20 |
3. Applicability of SC Adm. Circular No. 10-94.--Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the Sandiganbayan.
Administrative Circular 10-94[57]directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases in their dockets. The docket inventory procedure is as follows:[58]
"a. Every trial judge shall submit not later than the last week of February and the last week of August of each year a tabulation of all pending cases which shall indicate on a horizontal column the following data:Given the rationale behind the Administrative Circular, we hold that it is applicable to the Sandiganbayan with respect to cases within its original and appellate jurisdiction.
"1. Title of the case
"2. Date of Filing
"3. Date arraignment in criminal cases of Pre-trial in civil cases and
"4. Date of initial trial
"5. Date of last hearing
"6. Date submitted for Decision
"b. The tabulation shall end with a certification by the trial judge that he/she has personally undertaken an inventory of the pending cases in his/her court; that he/she has examined each case record and initialled the last page thereof. The judge shall indicate in his/her certification the date when inventory was conducted.
"c. The Tabulation and Certification shall be in the following form.
Docket Inventory for the Period
January __ to June ___, ___/July
To December ___, ___
(Indicate Period)
Court and Station ________
Presiding Judge ________
"CERTIFICATION:
"I hereby certify that on (Date/Dates___), I personally conducted a physical inventory of pending cases in the docket of this court, that I personally examined the records of each case and initialled the last page thereof, and I certify that the results of the inventory are correctly reflected in the above tabulation._____________________
Presiding Judge"
We reiterate the admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000:[59]
"This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Decision making is the primordial and most important duty of the member of the bench.[60]Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency[61]that warrants disciplinary sanction, including fine,[62]suspension[63]and even dismissal.[64]The rule particularly applies to justices of the Sandiganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bring it into disrepute.[65]Delays cannot be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the anti-graft court, the showcase of the nation's determination to succeed in its war against graft (underscoring ours)."InYuchengco v. Republic,[66]we urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer justice. We stated that the Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to amend and control its processes and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan as the nation's anti-graft court must be the first to avert opportunities for graft, uphold the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases and avert the precipitate loss of their rights.
According to the memorandum submitted by the OCA, there is a practice in the first and third divisions of the Sandiganbayan of unloading cases to other divisions despite the fact that these cases have been submitted for decision before them. We cite relevant portions of the memorandum:[67]
Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fourth Division
| Case No. | Title of the Case | Division where case originated | Date Submitted forDecision |
| 1) 17015 | PP vs. Raul Zapatos | 3rd | 06/06/94 |
| 2) 17016 | PP vs. Raul Zapatos | 3rd | 06/06/94 |
| 3) 14380 | PP vs. Francisco Ramoran | 3rd | 02/14/95 |
| 4) 18005 | PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac | 3rd | 05/07/96 |
| 5) 18006 | PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac | 3rd | 05/07/96 |
| 6) 13593 | PP vs. Dominador Meninguito | 3rd | 05/30/96 |
| 7) 13594 | PP vs. Dominador Meninguito | 3rd | 05/30/96 |
| 8) 19567 | PP vs. Dominador Meninguito | 3rd | 05/30/96 |
| 9) 17140 | PP vs. Jose Café, et. al. | 3rd | 06/13/96 |
| 10) 17141 | PP vs. Jose Café, et. al. | 3rd | 06/13/96 |
| 11) 20064 | PP vs. Ben dela Pena | 3rd | 07/01/96 |
| 12) 21131 | PP vs. Rufino Mamanguin | 3rd | 08/05/96 |
| 13) 17209 | PP vs. Isidro Catapang | 3rd | 12/27/96 |
| 14) 13757 | PP vs. Catalino Daganzo | 3rd | 03/21/97 |
| 15) 18257 | PP vs. Zenaida Sazon | 1st | 09/22/97 |
Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fifth Division
| Case Number | Date Submitted |
| 1. 10264 | 12/22/90 |
| 2. 13344 | 5/14/97 |
| 3. 16223 | 4/25/94 |
| 4. 16574 | 5/30/95 |
| 5. 16760 | 5/25/95 |
| 6. 16810 | 1/23/96 |
| 7. 17018 | 7/20/94 |
| 8. 17055 | 7/5/95 |
| 9. 17139 | 4/24/94 |
| 10. 17162 | 2/23/95 |
| 11. 17193 | 3/8/94 |
| 12. 17426 | 2/12/94 |
| 13. 17480 | 3/22/94 |
| 14. 17538 | 11/20/95 |
| 15. 17567 | 2/24/93 |
| 16. 17598 | 8/3/94 |
| 17. 17617 | 3/28/96 |
| 18. 17618 | 4/6/95 |
| 19. 17619 | 4/6/95 |
| 20. 17640 | 6/12/95 |
| 21. 17661 | 12/15/94 |
| 22. 17666 | 8/25/97 |
| 23. 17884 | 11/12/95 |
| 24. 17902 | 4/16/95 |
| 25. 18008 | 9/15/97 |
| 26. 18423 | 1/15/96 |
| 27. 18687 | 9/30/94 |
| 28. 18759 | 10/12/95 |
| 29. 18785 | 7/13/95 |
| 30. 18932 | 4/20/97 |
| 31. 18988 | 10/25/95 |
| 32. 18999 | 12/21/95 |
| 33. 19039 | 5/6/95 |
| 34. 19378 | 4/17/96 |
| 35. 19379 | 4/17/96 |
| 36. 19679 | 10/5/95 |
| 37. 19712 | 2/18/95 |
| 38. 19907 | 6/22/95 |
| 39. 20487 | 12/14/96 |
| 40. 20624 | 7/15/95 |
| 41. 23427 | 7/25/97 |
We suggest a review of the practice of unloading cases that greatly contributes to the backlog of undecided cases. When a case has been heard and tried before a division of the Sandiganbayan, it is ideal that the same division and no other must decide it as far as practicable.
We further note that several cases which were earlier reported as undecided by the Sandiganbayan and the OCA have been decided since the reports of September 26, 2000 and January 26, 2001. Nonetheless, the delay in deciding these cases is patent and merits reprobation. According to the compliance report submitted by the OCA on November 16, 2001, there are several cases decided way beyond the reglementary period prescribed by law, even assuming without granting, a reglementary period of twelve months from the time a case is submitted for decision.[68]
In a case brought before this Court, Presiding Justice Garchitorena admitted fault and that the fault is exclusively his own, in failing to decide the case, though submitted for decision as early asJune 20, 1990.[69]This case was not even included among pending cases in the Sandiganbayan report of September 26, 2000.
The following cases were decided, though beyond the prescribed period:
First Division
| Case Number | Submitted for Decision | Date of Promulgation | Ponente |
| 14195 | March 31, 1997 | November 10, 2000 | Ong |
| 21608 | March 31, 1997 | November 15, 2000 | Ong |
| 20588 | February 14, 1998 | January 12, 2001 | Ong |
| 19651 | November 15, 1996 | January 26, 2001 | Ong |
| 17670 | November 25, 1994 | January 26, 2001 | Ong |
| 17447-48 | September 6, 1994 | February 22, 2001 | Ong |
| 18283 | February 21, 1995 | February 23, 2001 | Ong |
| 17514 | August 19, 1994 | April 24, 2001 | Ong |
Second Division
| Case Number | Submitted for Decision | Date of Promulgation | Ponente |
| 18403-18417 | December 4, 1998 | February 2, 2001 | Victorino |
| 18435 | August 11, 2000 | March 26, 2001 | Victorino |
| 18786 | November 28, 2000 | March 28, 2001 | Legaspi |
| 19004 | September 10, 1996 | March 16, 2001 | Victorino |
| 19692-19707 | August 27, 2000 | February 26, 2001 | Sandoval |
| 19848 | March 28, 1996 | January 29, 2001 | Victorino |
| 20483-20484 | July 26, 1995 | April 6, 2001 | Victorino |
| 20660 | December 20, 2000 | August 2, 2001 | Legaspi |
| 20765 | August 30, 1996 | February 23, 2001 | Victorino |
| 20816 | March 11, 1998 | January 25, 2001 | Victorino |
| 21097 | December 13, 2000 | June 15, 2001 | Victorino |
| 22858 | August 11, 2000 | January 31, 2001 | Victorino |
| 22934 | October 14, 2000 | February 15, 2001 | Sandoval |
| 22976 | May 4, 1999 | March 1, 2001 | Sandoval |
| 23111 | November 27, 2000 | March 14, 2001 | Sandoval |
| 23262 | October 11, 2000 | May 16, 2001 | Victorino |
| 23338 | December 2, 1999 | December 14, 2000 | Sandoval |
| 23529-23530 | October 23, 2000 | March 28, 2001 | Victorino |
| 24407-24408 | August 11, 2000 | January 24, 2001 | Legaspi |
| 24994 | August 17, 2000 | May 30, 2001 | Sandoval |
| AR#035 | December 9, 2000 | August 28, 2001 | Legaspi |
Third Division
| Case Number | Submitted for Decision | Date of Promulgation | Ponente |
| A/R 016 | November 16, 1999 | January 26, 2001 | Ilarde |
| 13861-13863 | April 6, 2000 | December 22, 2000 | Del Rosario |
| 13889 | September 30, 1999 | May 10, 2001 | Ilarde |
| 16756 | August 28, 1999 | December 11, 2000 | Del Rosario |
| 23522 | July 6, 2000 | January 12, 2001 | Del Rosario |
Fourth Division
| Case Number | Submitted for Decision | Date of Promulgation | Ponente |
| 17664 | August 31, 1999 | June 1, 2000 | Pallatao |
| 17016 | June 6, 1994 | March 27, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 17140-41 | June 13, 1996 | February 6, 2001 | Nario |
| 17209 | December 27, 1996 | April 30, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 17805-09; 17814 | February 15, 2000 | October 10, 2001 | Palattao |
| 17856 | April 2, 2000 | June 25, 2001 | Palattao |
| 18005-06 | May 7, 1996 | May 18, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 18257 | September 22, 1997 | July 26, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 18894-96 | November 17, 2000 | March 20, 2001 | Palattao |
| 18900 | October 28, 2000 | March 23, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 18935-37 | June 16, 2000 | January 18, 2001 | Palattao |
| 19567 | May 21, 1996 | January 15, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 20338 | May 19, 1997 | February 9, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 20469 | July 7, 2000 | June 25, 2001 | Palattao |
| 13036-37 | February 22, 1999 | February 28, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 13593-94 | May 21, 1996 | January 15, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 20470-76 | July 7, 2000 | June 25, 2001 | Palattao |
| 20664 | June 29, 1996 | February 20, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 20685 | February 18, 2000 | March 2, 2001 | Palattao |
| 20828 | September 13, 2000 | October 8, 2001 | Palattao |
| 21093 | August 7, 1999 | January 15, 2001 | Palattao |
| 21131 | August 4, 1996 | February 13, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 21778-80 | September 29, 1997 | June 21, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 22891-92 | March 2, 2000 | December 13, 2000 | Ferrer |
| 23007 | May 24, 1999 | March 14, 2000 | Ferrer |
| 13757 | March 21, 1997 | July 2, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 14380 | February 14, 1995 | April 23, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 17015 | June 6, 1994 | March 27, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 23366 | November 26, 1999 | October 29, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 23415 | May 25, 2000 | May 28, 2001 | Palattao |
| 23534 | December 15, 2000 | February 28, 2001 | Palattao |
| 23708 | September 27, 2000 | September 10, 2001 | Nario |
| 24464-65 | July 26, 2000 | June 26, 2001 | Nario |
| 24742 | October 10, 2000 | March 22, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 24841-42 | May 9, 2000 | March 7, 2001 | Ferrer |
| 25198 | July 12, 2000 | February 6, 2001 | Nario |
| 25543 | December 27, 2000 | February 26, 2001 | Palattao |
| 25658 | July 28, 2000 | July 20, 2001 | Palattao |
| 24447-48 | September 18, 2000 | December 7, 2001 | Palattao |
Fifth Division
| Case Number | Submitted for Decision | Date of Promulgation | Ponente |
| 17826-17827 | December 9, 2000 | March 28, 2001 | Chico-Nazario |
| 19668 | July 26, 1998 | February 9, 2001 | Badoy, Jr. |
| 21882 | August 12, 2000 | July 25, 2001 | Chico- Nazario |
| 22184 | December 16, 2000 | May 21, 2001 | Chico- Nazario |
| 22873 | December 4, 1999 | May 31, 2001 | Chico- Nazario |
| 23319 | September 30, 2000 | April 23, 2001 | Chico- Nazario |
| 23450 | September 16, 2000 | March 16, 2001 | Chico- Nazario |
| 23515 | January 29, 2000 | May 28, 2001 | Cortez-Estrada |
| 24759 | May 5, 2000 | July 10, 2001 | Cortez-Estrada |
| 24858 | December 28, 2000 | May 31, 2001 | Chico-Nazario |
Relief of Presiding Justice
At this juncture, the Court cites the case ofCanson v. Garchitorena.[70]In that case, we admonished respondent Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena. General Jewel F. Canson, Police Chief Superintendent, National Capital Region Command Director, complained of deliberate delayed action of the Presiding Justice on the transfer of Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, depriving complainant of his right to a just and speedy trial. Due to a finding of lack of bad faith on the part of respondent justice, we issued only a warning. However, the dispositive portion of the decision cautioned respondent justice that "a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely."[71]
Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena sits as the Chairman, First Division, with a backlog of cases pending decision. At least seventy-three cases have been unassigned for the writing of the extended opinion, though submitted for decision. It may be the thinking of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan that an unassigned case is not counted in its backlog of undecided cases. This is not correct. It is the duty of the Presiding Justice and the Chairmen of divisions to assign theponenteas soon as the case is declared submitted for decision, if not earlier. If he fails to make the assignment, he shall be deemed to be theponente.
The Constitution provides that a case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.[72]In Administrative Circular No. 28, dated July 3, 1989, the Supreme Court provided that "A case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the evidence of the parties at the termination of the trial. The ninety (90) days period for deciding the case shall commence to run from submission of the case for decision without memoranda; in case the court requires or allows its filing, the case shall be considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case was previously heard by another judge not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall have the full period of ninety (90) days from the completion of the transcripts within which to decide the same."[73]The designation of aponenteto a case is not a difficult administrative task.
Administrative sanctions must be imposed. "Mora reprobatur in lege."[74]Again, we reiterate the principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities.[75]In this area, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, as theponenteassigned to the cases submitted for decision/resolution long ago, some as far back as more than ten (10) years ago, has been remiss constituting gross neglect of duty and inefficiency.[76]As we said in Canson,[77]unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a case amounts to a denial of justice, bringing the Sandiganbayan intodisrepute,eroding the public faith and confidence in the judiciary.[78]
Consequently, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena should be relieved of all trial and administrative work as Presiding Justice and as Chairman, First Division so that he can devote himselffull timeto decision-making until his backlog is cleared. He shall finish this assignment not later than six (6) months from the promulgation of this resolution.
We have, in cases where trial court judges failed to decideeven a single casewithin the ninety (90) day period, imposed a fine ranging from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to the equivalent of their one month's salary.[79]According to the report of the Sandiganbayan, as of September 26, 2000, there were three hundred forty one (341) cases submitted for decision before its first division headed by the Presiding Justice. In the memorandum of the OCA, there were one hundred ninety eight (198) cases reported submitted for decision before the First Division.[80]Even in the updated report, there are one hundred thirty eight (138) cases still undecided in the First Division.
In fact, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that he has a backlog.[81]He claimed that one (1) case alone comprises fifty percent (50%) of the backlog. We find this claim exaggerated. We cannot accept that a backlog of three hundred forty one (341) cases in the First Division could be eliminated by the resolution of a single consolidated case of one hundred fifty six (156) counts. A consolidated case is considered only as one case. The cases referred to were consolidated as Criminal Case Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, decided on December 8, 2000. What about the one hundred eighty five (185) cases that unfortunately remained undecided to this date? Worse, the motion for reconsideration of the decision in said cases, submitted as of January 11, 2001, has not been resolved to this date.[82]The First Division has only thirty (30) days from submission to resolve the same. It is now ten (10) months from submission. Theexpedienteand the motion were transmitted to theponente,Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, on that date, but to this day the case remains unresolved.[83]Unfortunately, even other divisions of the Sandiganbayan may be following his example.[84]
In the first report of the Court Administrator, he indicated a total of one hundred ninety five (195) criminal cases and three (3) civil cases, or a total of one hundred ninety eight (198) cases submitted for decision as of December 21, 2000.[85]Almost a year later, as of November 16, 2001, there are still one hundred thirty eight (138) cases undecided submitted long ago. For almost one year, not one case was decided/resolved by the Presiding Justice himself.[86]
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves:
(1) ToIMPOSEon Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena a fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), for inefficiency and gross neglect of duty.This directive is immediately executory.
(2) Effective December 1, 2001, toRELIEVEPresiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena of his powers, functions and duties as the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, and from presiding over the trial of cases as a justice and Chairman, First Division, so that he mayDEVOTEhimself exclusively toDECISION WRITING, until the backlog of cases assigned to him as well as cases not assigned to anyponente,of which he shall be deemed theponentein the First Division, are finally decided. There shall be no unloading of cases to other divisions, or to the First Divisioninter se.
In the interim, Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, as the most senior associate justice, shallTAKE OVERand exercise the powers, functions, and duties of the office of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, until further orders from this Court.
(3) ToDIRECTPresiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and the associate justices of the Sandiganbayan to decide/resolve the undecided cases submitted for decision as of this date, within three (3) months from their submission, and to resolve motions for new trial or reconsiderations and petitions for review within thirty (30) days from their submission. With respect to the backlog of cases, as hereinabove enumerated, the Sandiganbayan shall decide/resolve all pending cases including incidents therein within six (6) months from notice of this resolution.
(4) ToORDERthe Sandiganbayan to comply with Supreme Court Administrative Circular 10-94, effective immediately.
(5) ToDIRECTthe Sandiganbayanen bancto adopt not later than December 31, 2001 internal rules to govern the allotment of cases among the divisions, the rotation of justices among them and other matters leading to the internal operation of the court, and thereafter to submit the said internal rules to the Supreme Court for its approval.[87]
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, andCarpio, JJ., concur.
De Leon, Jr., J., see dissenting and concurring opinion.
Buena, J., on official leave.
[1]Dated July 29, 2000, done in Los Baños, Laguna. Signed by Arthur D. Lim (National President), and the following Governors: Carmencito P. Caingat (Central Luzon), Jose P. Icaonapo, Jr. (Greater Manila), Teresita Infatado-Gines (Southern Luzon), Serafin P. Rivera (Bicolandia), Celestino B. Sabate (Eastern Visayas), David A. Ponce de Leon (Western Visayas), Paulino R. Ersando (Western Mindanao). The following did not take any part in the Resolution: Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (Executive Vice President) was on study leave, and Nicanor A. Magno (Governor for Eastern Mindanao) was on sick leave.
[2]Rollo, p. 2.
[3]Rollo, pp. 3-4.
[4]Rollo, p. 5.
[5]Dated September 26, 2000, Rollo, pp. 6-18.
[6]Rollo, p. 6.
[7]As of September 15, 2000, Rollo, pp. 17-18.
[8]Resolution of the Court En Banc dated October 10, 2000, Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[9]Rollo, pp. 30-43.
[10]Article VIII, Section 15 (1), Constitution.
[11]Reply, Rollo, pp. 45-46.
[12]Rollo, p. 52.
[13]First Divisioncomposed of Francis E. Garchitorena (Presiding Justice and Chairman); Catalino R. Castañeda, Jr. (Associate Justice) and Gregory S. Ong (Associate Justice).
[14]Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, involving 156 cases.
[15]Rollo, p. 56.
[16]Rollo, pp. 61-101. The memorandum was a report on the judicial audit and physical inventory of pending cases before the five (5) Divisions of the Sandiganbayan conducted by the Court Administrator's Judicial Audit Team. The team was composed of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, together with Consultants Narciso T. Atienza, Conrado M. Molina, Romulo S. Quimbo, Pedro A. Ramirez, and staff. The report was prepared from December 11 to 19, 2000.
[17]Rollo, pp. 61-104, at p. 100.
[18]Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 145851, November 22, 2001.
[19]Memorandum to Chief Justice Davide dated January 26, 2001, Rollo, pp. 61-101, at p. 101.
[20]Pursuant to Section 15 (1) Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.
[21]Section 6, P.D. No. 1606, as amended; Section 3, Rule XVIII of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan.
[22]Cited in Montes v. Bugtas, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1627, April 17, 2001.
[23]See 2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court, pp. 7-8.
[24]R.A. No. 8249 (An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan) classifies the Sandiganbayan as "[A] special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice ... x x x (Section 1)."
[25]R. A. No. 8249, Section 2, empowers the Sandiganbayan to "hold sessions x x x for the trial and determination of cases filed with it."
[26]R. A. No. 8249, Section 1.
[27]P.D. No. 1606, Section 9, as amended.
[28]R.A. No. 7975, Section 4, except to adopt internal rules governing the allotment of cases among the divisions, the rotation of justices among them and other matters relating to the internal operations of the court which shall be enforced until repealed or modified by the Supreme Court.
[29]Ibid.
[30]Supra, Note 23, at p. 8.
[31]Enumerated under Section 4 of R. A. No. 8249
[32]Under R.A. No. 8249, Section 4, "The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided."
[33]Memorandum of the Office of the Court Administrator, Rollo, pp. 137-147, at p. 147.
[34]Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486, creating a special court to be known as the "Sandiganbayan."
[35]R.A. No. 8249 is silent on this matter. Amendments are to be construed as if they are included in the original act (Camacho v. CIR, 80 Phil. 848 [1948]).
[36]P.D. No. 1606, Section 9, provides, "The Sandiganbayan shall have the power to promulgate its own rules of procedure and, pending such promulgation, the Rules of Court shall govern its proceedings." However, R.A. No. 7975, Sec. 4, repealed this provision, approved March 30, 1995, effective May 6, 1995.
[37]Rule XVIII, Section 3, The Sandiganbayan, Revised Rules of Procedure.
[38]R.A. No. 7975, Section 1.
[39]Cariño v. Ofilada, 217 SCRA 206 (1993).
[40]Dacumos v. Sandiganbayan, 195 SCRA 833 (1991), discussing the power of a trial court.
[41]334 Phil. 369, 386 (1997).
[42]329 Phil. 300, 309-310 (1996).
[43]All pending before the Sandiganbayan's First Division, of which Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena is the Chairman.
[44]Compliance, Rollo, pp. 7-18.
*Second Divisioncomposed of Edilberto G. Sandoval (Associate Justice and Chairman); Godofredo L. Legaspi (Associate Justice) and Raul V. Victorino (Associate Justice).
**Third Divisioncomposed of Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. (Associate Justice and Chairman); Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (Associate Justice) and Ricardo M. Ilarde (Associate Justice,Retired November 27, 2001).
***Fourth Divisioncomposed of Narciso S. Nario (Associate Justice and Chairman); Rodolfo G. Palattao (Associate Justice) and Nicodemo T. Ferrer (Associate Justice).
****Fifth Divisioncomposed of Minita V. Chico-Nazario (Associate Justice and Chairman); Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada (Associate Justice) and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. (Associate Justice).
[45]2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Annex "H", p. 258.
[46]Dealing with a single delay in the municipal circuit trial court, Re: report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dingle-Duenas, Iloilo, 345 Phil. 884 (1997).
[47]See Comment of Presiding Justice, G. R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan.
[48]Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, involving 156 cases.
[49]Rollo, p. 56.
[50]See Semestral Inventory of Pending Cases, for the period January to July, 2001, Sandiganbayan, First Division, dated August 24, 2001, submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator by Estella Teresita C. Rosete, Executive Clerk of Court, First Division, Sandiganbayan.
[51]As of December 21, 2000.
[52]Memorandum for Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 61-104.
[53]Cf. Re: Request of Judge Masamayor, RTC-Br. 52, Talibon, Bohol, For Extension of Time to Decide Civil Case No. 0020 and Criminal Case No. 98-384, 316 SCRA 219 (1999); Bernardo v. Fabros, 366 Phil. 485 (1999).
[54]In a Memorandum signed by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. addressed to Justice (Ret.) Pedro A. Ramirez, OCA Consultant.
[55]Rollo, pp. 489-498.
[56]Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 342-348
*Justice Catalino R. Castaneda, Jr. joined the Sandiganbayan on September 24, 1997.
*Justice Gregory S. Ong was appointed to the Sandiganbayan on October 5, 1998.
**The Fourth and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan were created only on September 25, 1997.
***The case assignments of Justice Badoy, Jr. were all transferred to Justice Villaruz when Justice Badoy, Jr. transferred to the Third Division. The report of the Sandiganbayan with respect case assignments is dated September 30, 2001 (See Annex "E").
[57]Dated June 29, 1994.
[58]A(2) a.-c., Administrative Circular 10-94.
[59]Resolution of the Court En Banc, Rollo, pp. 19-21, at p. 20.
[60]Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).
[61]Cueva v. Villanueva, 365 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).
[62]Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC, Br. 27, Lapu-Lapu City, 352 Phil. 223, 232 (1998); Sta. Ana v. Arinday, Jr., 347 Phil. 671, 674 (1997).
[63]Bolalin v. Occiano, 334 Phil. 178 (1997).
[64]Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, 354 Phil. 8 (1998); Abarquez v. Rebosura, 349 Phil. 24, 38 (1998); Longboan v. Hon. Polig, 186 SCRA 557 (1990).
[65]Sta. Ana v. Arinday, Jr., supra, Note 62.
[66]333 SCRA 368, 387 (2000).
[67]Memorandum to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 61-104, at pp. 88, 93.
[68]Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 349-353.
[69]G. R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, filed on November 23, 2000.
[70]370 Phil. 287 (1999).
[71]Supra, at p. 288.
[72]Article VIII, Sec. 15 (2), Constitution.
[73]Supreme Court Circulars, Orders and Resolutions, October 1999 ed., pp. 144-145.
[74]Delay is reprobated in law (Black's Law Dictionary, 4thEdition, 1951, West Publishing Co., p. 1160.
[75]Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).
[76]Sabado v. Cajigal, 219 SCRA 800 (1993); Casia v. Gestopa, Jr., 371 Phil. 131 (1999); Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Brs. 29, 56 and 57, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, 316 SCRA 272 (1999); Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag, Jr., 365 Phil. 492 (1999); Re: report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 68, Camiling, Tarlac, 364 Phil. 530 (1999); Bernardo v. Fabros, 366 Phil. 485 (1999); Louis Viutton S. A. v. Villanueva, 216 SCRA 121 (1992); Imposed in a case where there was failure to decide a case despite the lapse of years from its submission (Lambino v. de Vera, 341 Phil. 62, 67 (1997).
[77]Supra, Note 61, at p. 303-304.
[78]Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dingle-Duenas, Iloilo, 345 Phil. 884 (1997).
[79]Supra, Note 78.
[80]As of December 21, 2000.
[81]Supra, Note 14, Rollo, p. 56.
[82]As of November 16, 2001. See Compliance Report, dated November 16, 2001, of Justice Ramirez.
[83]Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at p. 354.
[84]According to the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division Clerk of Court, a motion for reconsideration in the case of People v. Bienvenido Tan (Crim. Case No. 20685) submitted on May 4, 2001, has also remained unresolved. Another instance of violation of the thirty day reglementary period for resolving motions for reconsideration.
[85]Supra, pp. 17-18 of this resolution.
[86]On December 08, 2000, Presiding Justice Garchitorena decided a single consolidated case of 156 components, Crim. Cases Nos. 9812 to 9967, for estafa through falsification of public documents.
[87]R. A. No. 7975, Section 4.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
DE LEON, J.:
I respectfully dissent from the resolution of Mr. Justice Bernardo P. Pardo insofar as it declares and rules that the judgment of any division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months, and not within twelve (12) months, from the date the case was submitted for decision.
The resolution cites Section 6 of P.D. No. 1606 which requires that the judgment of the Sandiganbayan "shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision". The said provision was apparently adopted by the Sandiganbayan in Section 3 Rule XVIII of its Revised Rules of Procedure which was issued pursuant to P.D. No. 1606. The resolution also cites Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94, dated June 25, 1994 which is addressed "To: AllTrial Court Judgesand Clerks of Courts, Branch Clerks of Courts but not toSandiganbayan Justicesor the Clerk of Court and Division Clerk of Courts of the Sandiganbayan.
Section 15 (1) and (2) Article VII of the 1997 Constitution, however, provides that:
Sec. 15 (1). All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.The Supreme Court in Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not reduced the 12-month period mentioned in the above-quoted constitutional provision insofar as the Sandiganbayan, a collegiate court, is concerned. It is basic that in case of conflict between a constitutional provision on one hand and a statute or an internal rule of procedure of a court on the other, the former, being a part of the fundamental law of the land, must prevail. Also pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8245 (approved on February 5, 1997) the Sandiganbayan has also exclusive appellate jurisdiction "over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided."
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.xxx xxx xxx
In this connection, be it noted that section 1 of R.A. No. 8249 further amending P.D. No. 1606, as amended, provides that:
Section 1.Sandiganbayan; Composition; Qualification; Tenure; Removal and Compensation- A special court, of thesame level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, to be known as the Sandiganbayanis hereby created composed of a presiding justice and fourteen associate justices who shall be appointed by the President.Incidentally, per the Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan, each division is composed of three (3) justices whose unanimous vote is required to render a decision, resolution or order. In the event there is a dissent, a special division is formed whereby two (2) justices who shall be chosen by raffle and added to the division concerned, in which event, the majority rule shall prevail. For that reason and considering also that appeals from the decisions of the Sandiganbayan are to be filed directly with the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan as a collegiate trial court, is significantly different from the one-man regional trial court.Subject to the foregoing observations and partial dissent, I concur with the rest of the resolution.