G.R. Nos. 232197-98. December 5, 2018.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN
[FOURTH DIVISION], ALEJANDRO E. GAMOS, and
ROSALYN G. GILE, respondents.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Motion for

Reconsideration; Ombudsman; The filing of a motion for
reconsideration should not have stalled the Office of the
OmbudsmanÊs (OMBÊs) duty to promptly file the Informations in
court upon its finding of probable cause.·Respondents received the
said June 13, 2013 Order on January 20, 2014, while their motion
for reconsideration was filed on February 13, 2014. Clearly, this was
beyond the 5-day-period given for the filing thereof and, hence,
should not have been considered by the OMB in the filing of the
Informations before the graft court. More importantly, Section 7(b),
Rule II of the said Rules clearly states that: b) The filing of a
motion for reconsideration/rein-vestigation shall not bar the
filing of the corresponding information in Court on the basis
of the finding of probable cause in the resolution subject of the
motion. (As amended by Administrative Order No. 15, dated
February 16, 2000) x x x Clearly, the filing of a motion for
reconsideration should not have stalled the OMBÊs duty to promptly
file the Informations in court upon its finding of probable cause. In
fact, Section 7(a) above cited provides that a leave of court is
necessary before a motion for reconsideration is given due course
where an information has been already filed in court, implying that
an information may be filed in court immediately after an approved
order of resolution. Thus, we find no justifiable reason for the OMB
to delay the filing of the Informations before
the Sandiganbayan after it has already determined the existence of
probable cause. Indeed, these unexplained and unreasonable
institutional delays cannot impinge on the citizensÊ fundamental
rights. No less than our Constitution guarantees all persons the
right to speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.

_______________
 * SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION.

551

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 551

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Double Jeopardy;

Elements of.·As we have explained in our assailed Decision,
„double jeopardy attaches only when the following elements concur:
(1) the accused is charged under a complaint or information
sufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction; (2) the
court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and has
pleaded; and (4) he/she is convicted or acquitted, or the case is
dismissed without his/her consent.‰ The first and second elements
are undisputed. As to the third element, again, in our assailed
Decision, the Court was misled by the petitionerÊs assertion in its
petition that respondents were not yet arraigned due to their
refusal to appear therein. It appears, however, in this motion that
respondents have already been arraigned, satisfying thus the third
element. What is crucial, however, is the fourth element since the
criminal cases were clearly dismissed at the instance of the
respondents and the general rule is that the dismissal of a criminal
case resulting in acquittal, made with the express consent of the
accused or upon his own motion, will not place the accused in
double jeopardy. This rule, however, admits of two exceptions,
namely: insufficiency of evidence and denial of the right to speedy
trial or disposition of case. Thus, indeed respondents were the ones
who filed the motion to dismiss the criminal cases before the
Sandiganbayan, the dismissal thereof was due to the violation of
their right to speedy disposition, which would thus put them in
double jeopardy should the charges against them be revived.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the

Supreme Court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Barroga, Salindong, Fontanilla & Associates for
private respondents.

TIJAM, J.:

This resolves respondents Alejandro E. Gamos and

Rosalyn G. GileÊs Motion for Reconsideration1 dated July
18, 2018 of

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 382-395.

552

552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

our Decision2 dated April 16, 2018, wherein we reversed

and set aside the Resolutions dated February 1, 20173 and
April 26, 20174 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-15-CRM-0090
and SB-15-CRM-0091.
In the said motion, respondents pray that the above
cited Decision be reconsidered, insisting that their right to
speedy disposition was violated due to the undue delay in
the preliminary investigation before the Office of the
Ombudsman (OMB). The motion also clarified that,
contrary to petitionerÊs assertion in its petition5 that
respondents were not yet arraigned due to their refusal to
appear therein, they have already been arraigned, as
evidenced by a Certificate of Arraignment6 dated January
27, 2016 attached in the instant motion. Hence,
respondents argue that their right against double jeopardy
was also violated with the reinstatement of the criminal
cases against them.
Such paramount considerations merit a second look at
the facts of the case and the various arguments propounded
by the parties.
The factual backdrop of the case, as synthesized by this
Court in its April 16, 2018 Decision, are as follows:

Two separate complaints were filed against former Sta.

Magdalena, Sorsogon Mayor Alejandro E. Gamos (Gamos),
Municipal Accountant Rosalyn E. Gile (Gile), and Municipal
Treasurer Virginia E. Laco (Laco) for violation of Section 3(e)
of Republic Act No. 3019 (First Complaint) and of Article 217
of the Revised Penal Code (Second Complaint), arising from
alleged illegal cash advances made in the years 2004 to 2007.

_______________

2 Id., at pp. 369-381.

3 Id., at pp. 49-53.
4 Id., at pp. 55-59.
5 Id., at p. 13.
6 Id., at p. 397.

553

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 553

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

The First Complaint was filed on February 18, 2008 before

the Deputy Ombudsman (OMB) for Luzon by Jocelyn B.
Gallanosa (Gallanosa) and Joselito G. Robillos (Robillos), then
Sangguniang Bayan Members, alleging that Gamos, in
conspiracy with Gile and Laco, made illegal cash advances in
the total amount of P6,380,725.84 in 2004 and 2006 as per
Commission on Audit (COA) Audit Observation
Memorandum (AOM) No. 2007-01 to 2007-06 dated
September 18, 2007.
On March 31, 2008 Gamos, Gile, and Laco were directed to
submit their counter-affidavits in response to the said
complaint. On April 28, 2008, Gamos, Gile, and Laco filed a
motion for extension of time to file the required counter-
affidavit. On May 12, 2008, Gamos, Gile, and Laco filed the
said counter-affidavits, wherein they prayed for the dismissal
of the cases against them for being malicious, baseless, and
premature. On June 26, 2008, Gallanosa and Robillos filed
their Reply thereto. Gamos and Gile then filed a Joint
Rejoinder-Affidavit dated July 14, 2008. On August 20, 2009,
Gallanosa filed a Manifestation and Urgent Motion for
Preventive Suspension.
On December 3, 2009, Gallanosa, becoming then elected-
mayor, filed a Second Complaint against Gamos, Gile, and
Laco, alleging that Gamos, in conspiracy with Gile and Laco,
made illegal cash advances in the total amount of P2,226,500
made in January to May 2007 per COAÊs Report on the
Special Audit/Investigation on Selected Transactions of the
Municipality of Sta. Magdalena, Sorsogon.
On February 23, 2010, Gamos, Gile, and Laco were
directed to file their counter-affidavits to the Second
Complaint. On March 26, 2010, Gamos, Gile, and Laco filed a
motion for extension of time to file counter-affidavits. On
April 23, 2010, they filed a second motion for extension to file
the counter-affidavits. Gamos, Gile and Laco asked for the
dismissal of the Second Complaint in a Joint Counter-
 Affidavit (with Motion to Dismiss) dated May 7, 2010. On
June 1, 2010, Gallanosa filed a Reply thereto.

554

554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

On September 1, 2010, Gamos filed a Comment/Opposition

to the earlier motion praying for his preventive suspension.
On October 7, 2010, Gamos, Gile, and Laco filed an Ex
Parte Manifestation and Motion to Admit Letter to COA
Chairman dated June 21, 2010, requesting for the review of
the audit reports on which the complaints were based.
Thus, in a Consolidated Resolution dated October 19, 2010,
the OMBÊs investigating officer found that it is premature to
determine criminal and administrative liabilities considering
that the COA audit reports, upon which the complaints were
based, were not yet final. Thus, the dismissal of the
complaints was recommended without prejudice to the
outcome of the review requested by Gamos, Gile, and Laco to
the COA and to the refiling of the complainants if
circumstances warrant.
In view of the resignation of then Deputy OMB for Luzon,
Mark E. Jalandoni, on April 7, 2011 and the resignation of
then OMB Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez on May 6, 2011, the
said October 19, 2010 Consolidated Resolution was approved
on May 17, 2011 by the then Acting OMB Orlando C.
Casimiro.
Gallanosa and Robillos moved for the reconsideration of
the said October 19, 2010 Consolidated Resolution in a
Motion for Reconsideration dated June 26, 2011, which was
received by the OMB-Luzon on July 7, 2011. On October 11,
2011, Gamos, Gile, and Laco were required to file a comment
to the motion for reconsideration. On November 17, 2011,
Gamos, Gile, and Laco filed a motion for extension of time to
file comment. Their Comment-Opposition (to the Motion for
Reconsideration) was filed on December 5, 2011.
On January 9, 2012, OMB-Luzon received Gallanosa and
RobillosÊ Verified Position Paper, wherein COA ChairmanÊs
Letter dated September 8, 2010 effectively denying the
request for the review of the audit reports, was attached,
among others. On March 9, 2012,
 555

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 555

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

the OMB received the Supplemental to the Position Paper.

Thus, on June 13, 2013, Gallanosa and RobillosÊ June 26,
2011 motion for reconsideration was finally resolved, granting
the same, finding probable cause to indict Gamos, Gile, and
Laco for malversation of public funds.
On February 13, 2014, the OMB-Luzon received GamosÊ
Motion for Reconsideration followed by a Supplement to the
Motion for Reconsideration received on April 3, 2014.
In an Order dated June 20, 2014, GamosÊ motion for
reconsideration was denied. The said Order was approved by
the OMB on February 20, 2015.
Thus, on March 30, 2015, two Informations for
malversation of public funds were filed against Gamos, Gile,
and Laco before the Sandiganbayan.
For several times, however, Gamos failed to appear before
the said court for his arraignment despite notice. Thus,
Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution dated May 19, 2016,
directing Gamos to show cause why he should not be cited in
contempt.
On November 22, 2016, Gamos and Giles filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of capricious and vexatious delay in
the OMBÊs conduct of preliminary investigation to the
damage and prejudice of the accused. On December 7, 2016,
the petitioner filed a Comment/Oppo-sition [to the Motion to
Dismiss].7

In its February 1, 2017

8
Resolution, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the cases,
finding undue delay in the preliminary investigation before
the OMB to the prejudice of respondentsÊ right to a speedy
disposition of their cases. The Sandiganbayan found that
seven years have passed since the filing of the First
Complaint in 2008 until the filing of the Informations

_______________

7 Id., at pp. 369-372.

8 Id., at pp. 49-53.
 556

556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

before it. According to the said court, while the accused

may have contributed to the delay for filing several motions
for extension to file their pleadings, it took the OMB two
years to act upon the complaints. The graft court did not
accept petitionerÊs justification of the interval between the
October 19, 2010 Consolidated Resolution9 to its
approval, i.e., the resignations of the Deputy OMB for
Luzon and the OMB. According to the graft court, it took
another two years before the OMBÊs investigating officer
resolved to grant the motion for reconsideration of Jocelyn
B. Gallanosa (Gallanosa) and Joselito G. Robillos (Robillos),
a delay which has not been satisfactorily explained by the
prosecution.10
In our assailed Decision, we found no undue delay in the
conduct of preliminary investigation, mainly due to the fact
that several exchanges of pleadings were filed by both
parties from the filing of the First Complaint, as well as
after the filing of the Second Complaint. Hence, this Court
was of the impression that if there was any delay in the
sequence of events, it was due to the constant development
to the preliminary investigation caused by the constant
filing of motions and responsive pleadings from both
parties.11
Finding that the graft courtÊs dismissal of the criminal
cases was void, we ruled that there was no acquittal or
dismissal to speak of, hence, respondentsÊ right against
double jeopardy will not be violated in the reinstatement of
said criminal cases. Further, we considered the petitionerÊs
misleading assertion that respondents were not yet
arraigned and were even directed to show cause why they
should not be cited in contempt for their refusal to appear
in the arraignment, as well as the fact that the dismissal of
the cases was at

_______________

9 Id., at pp. 229-240.

10 Id., at pp. 372-373.
11 Id., at pp. 374-376.
 557

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 557

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

their instance, thus ruling out the attachment of double

jeopardy.12
The issues for our resolution in the instant motion are:
(1) whether or not there was undue delay in the conduct of
preliminary investigation, violating respondentsÊ right to a
speedy disposition of cases; and (2) whether or not
respondentsÊ right against double jeopardy was violated.

Ruling of the Court

The Court grants the motion for reconsideration.

A second hard look at the sequence of events reveals
that the Sandiganbayan did not err in finding undue delay
in the OMBÊs conduct of the preliminary investigation.
Indeed, while there may be no gap in the sequence of
events and developments in the preliminary investigation
that may be considered as delays in the conduct thereof, a
wholistic view of the entire preliminary investigation would
disclose certain shortcomings on the part of the OMB,
resulting undue delays in the proceedings, which, as
correctly found by the Sandiganbayan, were not
satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.
First. While there were constant resolutions from the
OMB directing the parties to file certain responsive
pleadings, it took the investigating officer two (2) years and
eight (8) months from the filing of the First Complaint on
February 18, 2008 to the issuance of the Consolidated
Resolution dated October 19, 2010, only to issue a
resolution stating that it found out that it was premature
for the OMB to determine criminal and administrative
liabilities considering that the Commission on Audit (COA)
was, at that time, still reviewing its findings.
Second. It took seven (7) months before the Acting OMB
approved the said October 19, 2010 Consolidated
Resolution

_______________

12 Id., at pp. 378-379.

 558

558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

and the only reason given by the prosecution was the

resignation of the then Deputy OMB for Luzon on April 7,
2011 and then OMB Gutierrez on May 6, 2011. If an acting
officer may act upon such important matters, we find the
resignation of the said officers irrelevant and unreasonable
to justify the delay in the proceedings to the prejudice of
respondentsÊ paramount right to a speedy disposition of
case.
Third. If prudence and efficiency were exercised by the
investigating officer in conducting the preliminary
investigation, taking into consideration the Constitutional
right of the respondents to a speedy disposition of cases, it
would not have dismissed the cases in its October 19, 2010
Consolidated Resolution, due to pendency of the review
before COA considering that as of September 8, 2010,
respondentsÊ request for review of the audit reports was
already denied by the COA. Clearly, such erroneous
dismissal unduly prolonged the preliminary investigation.
This bolsters SandiganbayanÊs finding that it took the
OMB two (2) years before it actually acted upon the
complaints.
In fact, it was only after the OMB came to know of the
COAÊs denial of respondentsÊ request when it started to
embark on the investigation and determination of probable
cause. In addition, despite receipt of the notice of COAÊs
denial of respondentsÊ request to review audit reports on
January 9, 2012, it took the OMB another one (1) year and
five (5) months before it finally resolved Gallanosa and
RobillosÊ July 7, 2011 motion for reconsideration of the
October 19, 2010 Consolidated Resolution, and finally
determine probable cause to indict respondents of the
criminal charges in its June 13, 2013 Order.
Fourth. The Order finding probable cause was issued on
June 3, 2013. However, it took the OMB another one (1)
year and eight (8) months to approve said Order (February
20, 2015) and another month to formally file the
Informations therefor before the Sandiganbayan (March
30, 2015). The
 559

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 559

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

belated filing of respondentsÊ motion for reconsideration of

the said Order cannot justify the OMBÊs failure to timely
file the Informations upon the finding of probable cause.
Section 7(a), Rule II of Administrative Order No. 7 or
the Rules of Procedure of the OMB (Rules) provides:

Sec. 7. Motion for reconsideration.·

a) Only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation of

an approved order or resolution shall be allowed, the same to
be filled within five (5) days from notice thereof with the
Office of the Ombudsman, or the proper Deputy Ombudsman
as the case may be, with corresponding leave of court in
cases where information has already been filed in
court[.] (Emphasis ours)

Respondents received the said June 13, 2013 Order on

January 20, 2014, while their motion for reconsideration
was filed on February 13, 2014.13 Clearly, this was beyond
the 5-day period given for the filing thereof and, hence,
should not have been considered by the OMB in the filing
of the Informations before the graft court.
More importantly, Section 7(b), Rule II of the said Rules
clearly states that:

b) The filing of a motion for reconsideration/rein-

vestigation shall not bar the filing of the corresponding
information in Court on the basis of the finding of
probable cause in the resolution subject of the motion. (As
amended by Administrative Order No. 15, dated February 16,
2000) (Emphasis and italics ours)

Clearly, the filing of a motion for reconsideration should

not have stalled the OMBÊs duty to promptly file the
Informations in court upon its finding of probable cause.

_______________

13 Id., at pp. 310-315.

 560

560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

In fact, Section 7(a) above cited provides that a leave of

court is necessary before a motion for reconsideration is
given due course where an information has been already
filed in court, implying that an information may be filed in
court immediately after an approved order of resolution.
Thus, we find no justifiable reason for the OMB to delay
the filing of the Informations before the Sandiganbayan
after it has already determined the existence of probable
cause.
Indeed, these unexplained and unreasonable
institutional delays cannot impinge on the citizensÊ
fundamental rights. No less than our Constitution
guarantees all persons the right to speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.14
Having established that the Sandiganbayan correctly
ruled for the dismissal of the criminal cases against
respondents due to undue delay in the conduct of
preliminary investigation, we find that the concept of
double jeopardy becomes relevant.
Our Constitution also protects all persons from a second
or later prosecution for the same offense. Article III,
Section 21 thereof provides:

Sec. 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of

punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a
law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

In consonance to the said Constitutional provision,

Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy.·

When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case
against him dismissed or otherwise termi-

_______________

14 CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 16.

 561

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 561

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

nated without his express consent by a court of competent

jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other
formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge,
the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of
the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense
charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration
thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in the former
complaint or information.

As we have explained in our assailed Decision, „double

jeopardy attaches only when the following elements concur:
(1) the accused is charged under a complaint or information
sufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction;
(2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been
arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) he/she is convicted or
acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his/her
consent.‰15
The first and second elements are undisputed. As to the
third element, again, in our assailed Decision, the Court
was misled by the petitionerÊs assertion in its petition that
respondents were not yet arraigned due to their refusal to
appear therein. It appears, however, in this motion that
respondents have already been arraigned, satisfying thus
the third element. What is crucial, however, is the fourth
element since the criminal cases were clearly dismissed at
the instance of the respondents and the general rule is that
the dismissal of a criminal case resulting in acquittal,
made with the express consent of the accused or upon his
own motion, will not place the accused in double
jeopardy.16 This rule, however, admits of two exceptions,
namely: insufficiency of evidence and denial

_______________

15 Rollo, p. 379, citing David v. Marquez, G.R. No. 209859, June 5,

2017, 825 SCRA 530.
16 See Condrada v. People, 446 Phil. 635, 641; 398 SCRA 482, 486
(2003).
 562

562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

of the right to speedy trial or disposition of case.17 Thus,

indeed respondents were the ones who filed the motion to
dismiss the criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan, the
dismissal thereof was due to the violation of their right to
speedy disposition, which would thus put them in double
jeopardy should the charges against them be revived.
WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration
is GRANTED. Our Decision dated April 16, 2018 is
hereby SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated
February 1, 2017 and April 26, 2017 of
the Sandiganbayan in SB-15-CRM-0090 and SB-15-CRM-
0091 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Peralta,** Del Castillo,

***
Jardeleza and Carandang, JJ., concur.

Motion for Reconsideration granted, judgment set aside.

Resolutions dated February 1, 2017 and April 26, 2017
affirmed.

The Supreme Court (SC) has consistently refrained from

interfering with the discretion of the Ombudsman to
determine the existence of probable cause and to decide
whether or

_______________

17 Tan v. People, 604 Phil. 68, 87; 586 SCRA 139, 161 (2009).
** Designated additional member per Raffle dated September 19, 2018
in lieu of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.
*** Pursuant to the third paragraph, Section 8, Rule 2 of the Internal
Rules of the Supreme Court vice Chief Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De
Castro.

563

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 563

 People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)

not an Information should be filed. Nonetheless, the Court

is not precluded from reviewing the OmbudsmanÊs action
when there is a charge of grave abuse of discretion.
(Presidential Commission on Good Government vs.
Navarro-Gutierrez, 773 SCRA 434 [2015])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.