Re Problem of Delays in Cases Before The Sandiganbayan

658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan
FACTS:
In July 2000, the IBP Board of Governors submitted to the SC a resolution

asking for the Court to conduct an inquiry into the causes of delay in the
resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases before the
Sandiganbayan. This resolution was prompted by numerous complaints from
IBP members about serious delays by the said trial court in their disposition
of cases.
In August 2000, the SC required Sandiganbayan PJ Garchitorena to comment

on the issue and submit a list of their pending matters.
In September 2000, the SC received Sandiganbayans compliance report

showing a total of 415 cases that have remained undecided long beyond the
reglementary period.
In November 2000, the SC directed Court Administrator Benipayo to conduct

a judicial audit of the Sandiganbayan.
In January 2001, OCA Benipayo submitted his report stating the various
reasons for the Sandiganbayans delays such as non-submission of
reinvestigation reports, filing of numerous motions, suspensions due to
certiorari and prohibitions, unloading of cases, and even plain neglect by the
trial court. On the basis of this report, OCA Benipayo considered ex mero
motu the IBP Resolution as an administrative complaint against PJ
Garchitorena for incompetence, inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and
misconduct in office.
ISSUE:
What is the reglementary period within which the Sandiganbayan must

decide/resolve cases falling within its jurisdiction?
HELD:
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 Constitution provides that 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; and that,
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.
On the other hand, the existing Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan

under Section 3 states that the judgment or final order of a division of the
Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the
case was submitted for decision.
The periods to decide cases as provided in the Constitution refers to regular

courts.
The Sandiganbayan, however, is a special court. It is of the same level as

the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of
justice, with functions of a trial court.
The Sandiganbayan was originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of

procedure. However, on March 30, 1995, Congress repealed the
Sandiganbayans power to promulgate its own rules of procedure, and instead
prescribed that the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court shall
apply to all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan.
Thus, the SC held that to decide cases, the 3-month period (and not the 12month period), applies to the Sandiganbayan.
In Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) v. Court of

Appeals, the Court faulted the DARAB for violating its 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, in Cabagnot v. Comelec, 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 imprudent volte-face moves that undermine
the publics faith and confidence in it.
The ratio decidendi in the aforecited cases applies mutatis mutandis (with
the necessary changes) to 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.
A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC. November 28, 2001.*
RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE

SANDIGANBAYAN
Administrative Law; Judges; There are two views within what 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
_______________
*
EN BANC.
VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 28, 2001
659

has twelve (12) months to decide or resolve it. 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.
Same; Same; Article VIII, Section 15(1) and (2) of the 1987 Constitution does not
apply to the Sandiganbayan for the said court is not a regular court but a special
one; Special courts are judicial tribunals exercising limited jurisdiction over
particular or specialized categories of actions.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. 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, with functions of a trial
court. Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one. The
Sandiganbayan was originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of procedure.
However, on March 30, 1995, Congress repealed the Sandiganbayans power to
promulgate its own rules of procedure and instead prescribed that the Rules of
Court promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings
filed with the Sandiganbayan. 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 Sharia Courts.
Same; Same; The three (3) month period, not the twelve month period, to decide cases
applies to the Sandiganbayan.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, 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. 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.
Same; Same; Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the Sandiganbayan.
Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the Sandiganbayan. Administrative
Circular 10-94 directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases in
their dockets.
Same; Same; Court urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer justice.In
Yuchengco v. Republic, we urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer justice.
We stated that the Sandiganbayan has the
660

inherent power to amend and control its processes and orders to make them
conformable to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan as the nations 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.
Same; Same; 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.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. 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. The designation of a ponente to a case is not a
difficult administrative task.
Same; Same; Unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a case amounts to a denial
of justice bringing the Sandiganbayan into disrepute, eroding the public faith and
confidence in the judiciary.Administrative sanctions must be imposed. Mora
reprobatur in lege. Again, we reiterate the principle that decision-making is the
most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities. In this area, Presiding
Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, as the ponente assigned 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. As we said in
Canson, unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a case amounts to a denial of
justice, bringing the Sandiganbayan into disrepute, eroding the public faith and
confidence in the judiciary.
661

DE LEON, J., Concurring and Dissenting opinion:
Administrative Law; Judges; 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.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.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Delays in Resolving Cases at
Sandiganbayan.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
RESOLUTION
PARDO, J.:
The Case
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.
The Antecedents
On July 31, 2000, the IBP, through its National President, Arthur D. Lim,
transmitted to the Court a Resolution1 addressing the
_______________
Dated July 29, 2000, done in Los Baos, 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
1
662

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;
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:
_______________
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.
Rollo, pp. 3-4.

663

1. 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. 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 Baos, Laguna, this 29th day of July, 2000.
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
On September 27, 2000, complying with the order, Presiding Justice Francis E.
Garchitorena submitted a report5 (hereafter, the compliance) admitting a number of
cases submitted for decision and motion for reconsideration pending resolution
before its divisions. We quote:
Cases Submitted
For Decision
W/ Motions For
Reconsideration
1st Division
341
None
2nd Division
None
3rd Division
12
None
4th Division
None
5th Division
52
Total
4156
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
_______________
4
Rollo, p. 5.
Dated September 26, 2000, Rollo, pp. 6-18.
Rollo, p. 6.
664

May 24, 1990,7 and motion for reconsideration which has remained unresolved over
thirty days from submission.8
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 Sandiganbayans 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 Constitution10 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
_______________
7
As of September 15, 2000, Rollo, pp. 17-18.
Resolution of the Court En Banc dated October 10, 2000, Rollo, pp. 19-20.
Rollo, pp. 30-43.
10
Article VIII, Section 15(1), Constitution.
11
Reply, Rollo, pp. 45-46.
12
Rollo, p. 52.
665

Division of the Sandiganbayan13 has a backlog of cases; that one case14 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
Court16 stating that the causes of delay in the disposition of cases before the
Sandiganbayan are:17
1. (1) Failure of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to submit
reinvestigation report despite the lapse of several years;
2. (2) Filing of numerous incidents such as Motion to Dismiss, Motion to
Quash, Demurrer to Evidence, etc. that remain unresolved for years;
3. (3) Suspension of proceedings because of a pending petition for
certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court;
4. (4) Cases remain unacted upon or have no further settings despite the
lapse of considerable length of time; and
5. (5) Unloading of cases already submitted for decision even if the
ponente is still in service.
We consider ex mero motu the 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 pend_______________
First Division composed of Francis E. Garchitorena (Presiding Justice and

Chairman); Catalino R. Castaeda, Jr. (Associate Justice) and Gregory S. Ong
(Associate Justice).
13
Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leao, involving 156

cases.
14
15
Rollo, p. 56.
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 Administrators 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.
16
17
Rollo, pp. 61-104, at p. 100.
666

ing 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
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 aforestated reglementary period?
(3) Is Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1094 applicable to the
Sandiganbayan?19
The Courts Ruling

We resolve the issues presented in seriatim.
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
_______________
18
Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 145851, November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA 394.
Memorandum to Chief Justice Davide dated January 26, 2001, Rollo, pp. 61-101,
at p. 101.
19
20
Pursuant to Section 15(1) Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.
Section 6, P.D. No. 1606, as amended; Section 3, Rule XVIII of the Revised Rules of
the Sandiganbayan.
21
667

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.
(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 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
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 Sandiganbayans
power to promulgate its own rules of procedure28 and instead prescribed that the
Rules of Court promul_______________
22
Cited in Montes v. Bugtas, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1627, April 17, 2001, 356 SCRA 539.
23
See 2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court, pp. 7-8.
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
24
Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice . . . x x x

(Section 1).
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.
25
26
R.A. No. 8249, Section 1.
27
P.D. No. 1606, Section 9, as amended.
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.
28
668

gated 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 Sharia Courts.30
Under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution Rules of procedure of special
courts and 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. 160634 is clear on this issue.35 It
provides:
Sec. 6. Maximum period for termination of casesAs 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.
_______________
29
Ibid.
30
Supra, Note 23, at p. 8.
31
Enumerated under Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249.
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.
32
Memorandum of the Office of the Court Administrator, Rollo, pp. 137-147, at p.

147.
33
Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486, creating a special court to be known as the
Sandiganbayan.
34
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]).
35

On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules, 36 thus:37
669
Sec. 3. Maximum Period to Decide CasesThe judgment or final order of a division

of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the
case was submitted for decision (italics 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
Compliance with its Own Rules

In Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) v. Court of
Appeals,41 the Court faulted the DARAB for violating its 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.
_______________
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.
36
37
Rule XVIII, Section 3, The Sandiganbayan, Revised Rules of Procedure.
38
39
Cario v. Ofilada, 217 SCRA 206 (1993).
Dacumos v. Sandiganbayan, 195 SCRA 833 (1991), discussing the power of a trial
court.
40
41
334 Phil. 369, 386; 266 SCRA 404 (1997).
670

Similarly, in Cabagnot 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 imprudent volteface moves that undermine the publics faith and confidence in it.
The ratio decidendi in the afore-cited cases applies mutatis mutandis to 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 as far back
as more than ten (10) years ago. As of September 15, 2000, the following cases43 had
not been decided:44
First Division
Case Title
Case No.
Date Submitted for
(1) People v. Paares
12127
May 24, 1990
(2) People v. Gabriel Duero
11999
December 11, 1990
(3) People v. Rhiza Monterozo
133533
December 14, 1990
Case Title
Case No.
Date Submitted for
(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
_______________
42
329 Phil. 300, 309-310; 260 SCRA 503 (1996).
All pending before the Sandiganbayans First Division, of which Presiding Justice
Francis E. Garchitorena is the Chairman.
43
44
Compliance, Rollo, pp. 7-18.
671

(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. Buguia
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
672

(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. Belcia, 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. Sobrepea
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 Leao
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
673

(62) People v. Ceferino Paredes, Jr., et al.
18857
November 17, 1998
(63) People v. Brig. Gen. Raymundo Jarque, et al.
18696
January 15, 1999
(64) People v. Mayor Agustin R. Escao, 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
(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
December 22, 1999
674

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.
(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
Case Title
Case No.
(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, 2000
_______________
Second Division composed of Edilberto G. Sandoval (Associate Justice and
Chairman); Godofredo L. Legaspi (Associate Justice) and Raul V. Victorino
(Associate Justice).
**
Third Division composed 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).
***
675

Fourth Division****
Case Title
Case No.
(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.
(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
Case Title
Case No.
(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
_______________
Fourth Division composed of Narciso S. Nario (Associate Justice and Chairman);
Rodolfo G. Palattao (Associate Justice) and Nicodemo T. Ferrer (Associate Justice).
****
Fifth Division composed of Minita V. Chico-Nazario (Associate Justice and

Chairman); Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada (Associate Justice) and Francisco H.
Villaruz, Jr. (Associate Justice).
*****
676

(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 Maraon
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 deciding a single case 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
_______________
45
2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Annex H, p. 258.
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; 280 SCRA 637 (1997).
46
677

the packing and crating of records; and that some boxes were still unopened. 47
We likewise find unacceptable Presiding Justice Garchitorenas excuse that one case
alone48 comprises more than fifty percent (50%) of the First Divisions backlog and
that the same has been set for promulgation on December 8, 2000. 49 As we said, a
delay in a single case cannot 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 promulgation51 before the five
divisions of the Sandiganbayan are:52
_______________
47
See Comment of Presiding Justice, G.R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan.
Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leao, involving 156

cases.
48
49
Rollo, p. 56.
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.
50
51
As of December 21, 2000.
52
Memorandum for Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 61-104.
678

First Division
Case Number
DateSubmitted
Case Number
Date Submitted
1. 11156
8/9/91
39. 14375
5/22/95
2. 11157
8/9/91
40. 14411
1/24/93
3. 11158
8/9/91
41. 14975
9/29/94
4. 11159
8/9/91
42. 14986
12/11/92
5. 11160
8/9/91
43. 15006
11/19/94
6. 11999
12/10/90
44. 15168
3/25/93
7. 12102
7/1/91
45. 15301
3/16/94
8. 12127
2/12/90
46. 16239
12/26/91
9. 12139
6/10/92
47. 16516
11/19/91
10. 12289
8/28/91
48. 16583
8/13/96
11. 12305
2/7/91
49. 16584
8/13/96
Case Number
DateSubmitted
Case Number
Date Submitted
12. 12306
2/7/91
50. 16585
8/13/96
13. 13015
3/2/92
51. 16695
8/15/96
14. 13171
11/16/95
52. 16854
1/15/96
15. 13353
10/6/90
53. 16927
12/17/95
16. 13521
12/12/99
54. 16928
2/17/95
17. 13563
7/4/95
55. 16946
8/4/93
18. 13618
7/14/91
56. 17001
9/4/97
19. 13668
6/13/93
57. 17278
5/2/94
20. 13672
3/5/92
58. 17447
9/6/94
21. 13679
8/6/91
59. 17448
9/6/94
22. 13680
8/6/91
60. 17514
8/19/94
23. 13689
11/14/92
61. 17600
8/30/97
24. 13690
11/14/92
62. 17601
8/30/97
25. 13691
11/14/92
63. 17670
11/25/94
Case Number
DateSubmitted
Case Number
Date Submitted
26. 13692
11/14/92
64. 17759
6/25/96
27. 13693
11/14/92
65. 17901
5/28/98
28. 13694
11/14/9
66. 18283
2/21/95
29. 13695
11/14/92
67. 18696
8/9/98
30. 13708
3/9/92
68. 18857
10/21/98
31. 13747
8/19/94
69. 19059
2/11/99
32. 13748
8/19/94
70. 19060
2/11/99
33. 13971
3/12/95
71. 19061
2/11/99
34. 14223
3/7/97
72. 19062
2/11/99
35. 14227
9/5/92
73. 19063
2/11/99
36. 14230
11/30/90
74. 19534
9/2/98
37. 14287
7/3/94
75. 19535
9/2/98
38. 14324
11/5/95
76. 19651
11/15/96
679

77. 19708
8/25/98
117. 24049
4/28/99
78. 19773
5/21/99
118. 24050
4/28/99
79. 19774
5/21/99
119. 24051
4/28/99
80. 19775
5/21/99
120. 24052
4/28/99
81. 19976
5/21/99
121. 24053
4/28/99
82. 19977
5/21/99
122. 24054
4/28/99
83. 19978
5/21/99
123. 24055
4/28/99
84. 19979
5/21/99
124. 24056
4/28/99
85. 20588
2/14/95
125. 24057
4/28/99
86. 20688
7/9/98
126. 24058
4/28/99
87. 20948
10/9/97
127. 24059
4/28/99
88. 20949
10/9/97
128. 24060
4/28/99
89. 21020
7/4/95
129. 24061
4/28/99
90. 22145
7/7/99
130. 24062
4/28/99
91. 22195
6/14/96
131. 24063
4/28/99
92. 22196
6/14/96
132. 24064
4/28/99
93. 22832
10/21/98
133. 24065
4/28/99
94. 23042
8/27/98
134. 24066
4/28/99
95. 23146
11/13/00
135. 24067
4/28/99
96. 23273
4/19/99
136. 24068
4/28/99
97. 23323
3/23/00
137. 24069
4/28/99
98. 23324
8/3/97
138. 24070
4/28/99
99. 23336
9/4/97
139. 24071
4/28/99
100. 23374
12/17/98
140. 24072
4/28/99
101. 23418
10/15/99
141. 24073
4/28/99
102. 23419
10/15/99
142. 24074
4/28/99
103. 23420
10/15/99
143. 24075
4/28/99
104. 23421
10/15/99
144. 24076
4/28/99
105. 23422
10/15/99
145. 24077
4/28/99
106. 23423
10/15/99
146. 24078
4/28/99
107. 23509
9/5/98
147. 24079
4/28/99
108. 23511
4/23/99
148. 24080
4/28/99
109. 23540
10/15/99
149. 24081
4/28/99
110. 24042
4/28/99
150. 24082
4/28/99
111. 24043
4/28/99
151. 24083
4/28/99
112. 24044
4/28/99
152. 24084
4/28/99
113. 24045
4/28/99
153. 24085
4/28/99
114. 24046
4/28/99
154. 24086
4/28/99
115. 24047
4/28/99
155. 24087
4/28/99
116. 24048
4/28/99
156. 24088
4/28/99
680

157. 24089
4/28/99
177. 24325
11/4/99
158. 24090
4/28/99
178. 24326
11/4/99
159. 24091
4/28/99
179. 24327
11/4/99
160. 24092
4/28/99
180. 24328
11/4/99
161. 24093
4/28/99
181. 24329
11/4/99
162. 24094
4/28/99
182. 24339
10/20/00
163. 24095
4/28/99
183. 24355
2/18/99
164. 24096
4/28/99
184. 24395
7/13/99
165. 24097
4/28/99
185. 24402
6/17/99
166. 24098
4/28/99
186. 24433
9/6/99
167. 24150
1/31/00
187. 24434
9/6/99
168. 24236
2/14/00
188. 24531
12/16/99
169. 24237
2/14/00
189. 24532
12/16/99
170. 24281
5/9/99
190. 24533
12/16/99
171. 24319
11/4/99
191. 24534
12/16/99
172. 24320
11/4/99
192. 24631%
8/9/99
173. 24321
11/4/99
193. 24768
7/8/00
174. 24322
11/4/99
194. 6672
7/11/90
175. 24323
11/4/99
195. 9977
5/10/94
176. 24324
11/4/99
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
Case No.
Date Submitted
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
681

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
0. 184412
12/4/98
1. 184413
12/4/98
2. 184414
12/4/98
3. 184415
12/4/98
4. 184416
12/4/98
5. 184417
12/4/98
6. 13827
8/30/00
7. 13828
8/30/00
8. 13829
8/30/00
9. 13830
8/30/00
0. 13831
8/30/00
1. 13832
8/30/00
2. 18965
11/30/00
3. 19848
3/28/96
4. 20765
8/30/96
5. 20816
3/11/98
6. 19692
8/27/00
7. 19693
8/27/00
8. 19694
8/27/00
9. 19695
8/27/00
0. 19696
8/27/00
1. 19697
8/27/00
2. 19698
8/27/00
3. 19699
8/27/00
4. 19700
8/27/00
5. 19701
8/27/00
6. 19702
8/27/00
7. 19703
8/27/00
8. 19704
8/27/00
9. 19705
8/27/00
0. 19706
8/27/00
682

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/0 05
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
Case Number
Date Submitted
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
683

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
02/22/29
4. 13037
02/22/99
5. 13593
05/21/96
6. 13594
05/21/96
7. 13757
03/21/97
Case No.
Date Submitted
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
684

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
685

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
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
Case Number
Date Submitted
Criminal Cases
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
686

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
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
Memorandum of the Court Administrator

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 Courts 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
_______________
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; 307 SCRA 28 (1999).
53
In a Memorandum signed by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. addressed to

Justice (Ret.) Pedro A. Ramirez, OCA Consultant.
54
55
Rollo, pp. 489-498.

687
the OCA on January 26, 2001, have not been decided/resolved. We quote the
compliance report:56
First Division
Case Number DateSubmitted PonenteAssigned
Reason for Not

Deciding Case
194. 11999
12/10/90
Garchitorena
Under study, submitted before the reorganization
195. 12102
7/1/91
Garchitorena
196. 12127
2/12/90
Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
197. 12139
6/10/92
Castaneda******
198. 12289
8/28/91
Castaneda
199. 12305-062/7/91
Castaneda
200. 13015
3/2/92
Garchitorena
201. 13171
11/16/95
Castaneda
202. 13353
10/6/90
Garchitorena
203. 13521
12/12/99
Garchitorena
204. 13563
7/4/95
Garchitorena
205. 13618
7/14/91
Castaneda
Case Number DateSubmitted PonenteAssigned
Reason for Not

Deciding Case
206. 13668
6/13/93
Castaneda
207. 13672
3/5/92
Castaneda
208. 13679-808/6/91
Castaneda
_______________
56
Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 342-348.
Justice Catalino R. Castaeda, Jr. joined the Sandiganbayan on September 24,

1997.
******
688

209. 13689- 11/14/92Castaneda

95
210. 13708 3/9/92
Castaneda
211. 13747- 8/19/94 Castaneda

48
212. 13971 3/12/95 Castaneda
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
215. 14230 1/30/90 Castaneda
216. 14287 7/3/94
Castaneda
217. 14324 11/5/95 Castaneda
218. 14375 5/22/95 Castaneda
Under study, submitted before he reorganization
219. 14411 1/24/93 Garchitorena
Under study, submitted before he reorganization
220. 14975 9/29/94 Castaneda
221. 14986 12/11/92Castaneda
Jnder study, submitted before the reorganization
222. 15006 11/19/94Castaneda
223. 15168 3/25/93 Castaneda
224. 15301 3/16/94 Castaneda
225. 16239 12/26/91Castaneda
226. 16516 11/19/91Castaneda
227. 16583- 8/13/96 Castaneda

85
_______________
*******
Justice Gregory S. Ong was appointed to the Sandiganbayan on October 5, 1998.
689

228. 16695 8/15/96 Castaneda
229. 16854 1/15/96 Castaneda
230. 16927- 12/17/9 Castaneda

28
5
231. 16946 8/4/93 Castaneda
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.)
236. 17759 6/25/96 Ong
8
Decided and set for promulgation
240. 19059- 2/11/99 Not yet assigned

63
241. 19534- 9/2/98 Not yet assigned
35
243. 19773- 5/21/99 Not yet assigned
79
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

249. 22195- 6/14/96 Castaneda
96
8
252. 23146 11/13/00Not yet assigned

8
258. 23418- 10/15/9 Not yet assigned
23
9
690

259. 23509
9/5/98
Not yet assigned
260. 23511
4/23/99 Not yet assigned
261. 23540
262. 24042-98 4/28/99 Ong

263. 24150
Set for Promulgation on November 27, 2001
264. 24236-37 2/14/00 Not yet assigned

265. 24281
5/9/99
Not yet assigned
266. 24319-29 1 1/4/99 Not yet assigned

267. 24339
10/20/00 Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
268. 24355
269. 24395
270. 24402
271. 24433-34 9/6/99
Not yet assigned
272. 24531-34 12/16/99 Not yet assigned

273. 24631
8/9/99
Mot yet assigned
274. 24768
7/8/00
Not yet assigned
275. 6672
7/11/90 Garchitorena
276. 9977
5/10/94 Garchitorena
277. 0112
278. 0116
279. 0156
Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Garchitorena, PJ.
Cases Assigned to Castaneda, J.
Cases Assigned to Ong, J.
Cases not yet assigned
Cases not accounted for or reported
Total
9
42
5
73
9
138
691

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
65. 18965
11/30/00
For retaking of testimony due to incomplete TSN
For promulgation
Third Division
Case
Number
Date
Submitted
Ponente Assigned
47.
SCA/005
12/18/00
Ilarde
48. A/R
029
10/2/00
Illarde
49. 487491
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
Case
Number
Date
Submitted
Ponente Assigned
52. 18867- 10/5/00

72
Pending trial per order dated 08/1 7/00
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- 4/6/00

24
Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97
57. 20053- 4/6/00

54
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- 3/22/00

701
Ilarde
62. 23802- 9/10/00

03
No Assignment
63. 24153 12/18/00
No Assignment
Case
Number
Date
Submitted
Ponente Assigned
64. 24697- 9/10/00

98
Ilarde
65. 24741 12/7/00
De Castro
66. 24779- 10/28/00

81
No Assignment
67. 25657 5/5/00
With Defense pending motion for the reexamination of the Information

and the parties affidavits, etc. Order dated 08/31/01
692
--

Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Illarde, J.
Cases Assigned to De Castro, J.
Cases not yet assigned
Others
18
Total
39
Fourth Division********
Case
Date
Number Submitted
Ponente
Assigned
Reason for Not

Deciding Case
71. 1196009/21/98
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
Palattao
--
73.
04/27/00
23058-62
Nario
--
74.
25389
Nario
--
03/26/00
09/26/00
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.
34. 17030
2/19/98
Badoy, Jr.
35. 18478
8/21/00
Estrada
Case Number
Date Submitted
Ponente Assigned
Reason for Not

Deciding Case
36. 18684
5/29/98
Badoy, Jr.
37. 18880
12/6/00
Badoy, Jr.
38. 19510-12
12/4/00
Estrada
_______________
The Fourth and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan were created only on
September 25, 1997.
********
693

39. 19593
6/5/98
Badoy, Jr.
40. 19614
7/31/98
Badoy, Jr.
41. 20194
1/8/01
Chico-Nazario
Complicated Issues
42. 20427
1 1/3/99
Badoy, Jr.
43. 20648-49
1/4/98
Badoy, Jr.
44. 20694
3/11/98
Estrada
45. 22926
11/13/00 No report, Unaccounted for by the Sandiganbayan report
46. 23066
8/16/99
47. 24155
11/30/00 Estrada
Not yet due
48. 24379
8/27/00
Draft decision released 7/31/01
Badoy, Jr.
Estrada
Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Badoy, J.*********
Cases Assigned to Estrada, J.
11
7
Cases Assigned to Chico-Nazario, J.
No report/Unaccounted For
Total
20
3. Applicability of SC Adm. Circular No. 10-94.Supreme

Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the Sandiganbayan. Administrative Circular 109457 directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases in their dockets.
The docket inventory procedure is as follows:58
_______________
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.
694

1. 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:
1. 1. Title of the case
2. 2. Date of Filing
3. 3. Date arraignment in criminal cases of Pre-trial in civil cases and
4. 4. Date of initial trial
5. 5. Date of last hearing
6. 6. Date submitted for Decision
1. 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.
2. 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 _______
Title
of Case
Date
Filed
Pretrial/
Arraignment
Initial
Hearing
Date of
Last
Hearing
Date
submitted for
Decision
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
________________
695

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.
Mora Decidendi
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 inefficiency61 that warrants disciplinary
sanction, including fine,62 suspension63 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 nations determination to succeed in its war against graft
(italics ours).
In Yuchengco 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 nations anti-graft court must be the first to avert
_______________
59
Resolution of the Court En Banc, Rollo, pp. 19-21, at p. 20.
60
Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883; 280 SCRA 633 (1997).
61
Cueva v. Villanueva, 365 Phil. 1, 10; 305 SCRA 459 (1999).
Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC, Br. 27, Lapu-Lapu City, 352 Phil. 223, 232;
289 SCRA 398 (1998); Sta. Ana v. Arinday, Jr., 347 Phil. 671, 674; 283 SCRA 392
(1997).
62
63
Bolalin v. Occiano, 334 Phil. 178; 266 SCRA 203 (1997).
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo
City, 354 Phil. 8; 292 SCRA 8 (1998); Abarquez v. Rebosura, 349 Phil. 24, 38; 285
SCRA 109 (1998); Longboan v. Hon. Polig, 186 SCRA 557 (1990).
64
65
Sta. Ana v. Arinday, Jr., supra, Note 62.
66
333 SCRA 368, 387 (2000).
696

opportunities for graft, uphold the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of
their cases and avert the precipitate loss of their rights.
Practice of Unloading Cases

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 for
Decision
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
Case No.
Title of the Case
Division
where case
originated
Date
Submitted for
Decision
7) 13594
3rd
05/30/96
8) 19567
3rd
05/30/96
9) 17140
PP vs. Jose Cafe, et al.
3rd
06/13/96
10) 17141
PP vs. Jose Cafe, 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
_______________
Memorandum to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 61-104, at pp. 88,
93.
67

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
697
Case Number
Date Submitted
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
Case Number
Date Submitted
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
698

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 as June 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:
_______________
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.
699

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
17514
August 19, 1994
April 24, 2001
Ong
18283
February 21, 1995
February 23, 2001
Ong
Second Division
Case Number
18403-18417
Submitted for
Decision
December 4, 1998
Date of
Promulgation
February 2, 2001
Ponente
Victorino
Case Number
Submitted for
Decision
Date of
Promulgation
Ponente
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
Case Number
Submitted for
Decision
Date of
Promulgation
Ponente
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
700

Third Division
Case Number
Submitted for
Decision
Date of
Promulgation
Ponente
A/R016
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
Case Number
Submitted for
Decision
Date of
Promulgation
Ponente
17805-09; 7814
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
Case Number
Submitted for
Decision
Date of
Promulgation
Ponente
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
701

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 of Canson 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
_______________
70
370 Phil. 287; 311 SCRA 268 (1999).
702

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 the ponente as
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 the ponente.
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 tran_______________
71
Supra, at p. 288.
72
Article VIII, Sec. 15 (2), Constitution.
703

scripts within which to decide the same.73 The designation of a ponente to 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 the ponente assigned 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 into disrepute, 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 himself full time to 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 decide even a single case within
the ninety (90) day period, imposed a fine rang_______________
73
Supreme Court Circulars, Orders and Resolutions, October 1999 ed., pp. 144-145.
Delay is reprobated in law (Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1951, West
Publishing Co., p. 1160).
74
75
Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883; 280 SCRA 633 (1997).
Sabado v. Cajigal, 219 SCRA 800 (1993); Casia v. Gestopa, Jr., 371 Phil. 131; 312
SCRA 204 (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
76
Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag, Jr., 365 Phil. 492; 306 SCRA 50 (1999); Re: Report on
the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 68, Camiling, Tarlac, 364 Phil. 530;
305 SCRA 61 (1999); Bernardo v. Fabros, 366 Phil. 485; 307 SCRA 28 (1999); Louis
Vuitton 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; 275 SCRA 60 (1997).
77
Supra, Note 61, at pp. 303-304.
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Dingle-Duenas, Iloilo, 345 Phil. 884; 280 SCRA 637 (1997).
78
704

ing from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to the equivalent of their one months
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 fortyone (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-Leano, 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. The expediente and the motion
were transmitted to the ponente, 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
_______________
79
Supra, Note 78.
80
As of December 21, 2000.
81
Supra, Note 14, Rollo, p. 56.
As of November 16, 2001. See Compliance Report, dated November 16, 2001, of
Justice Ramirez.
82
83
Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at p. 354.
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.
84
705

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
Directive
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves:

1. (1) To IMPOSE on Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena a fine of
twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), for inefficiency and gross neglect
of duty.
2. (2) Effective December 1, 2001, to RELIEVE Presiding 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 may DEVOTE himself
exclusively to DECISION WRITING, until the backlog of cases
assigned to him as well as cases not assigned to any ponente, of which
he shall be deemed the ponente in the First Division, are finally
decided. There shall be no unloading of cases to other divisions, or to
the First Division inter se. In the interim, Associate Justice Minita V.
Chico-Nazario, as the most senior associate justice, shall TAKE OVER
and exercise the powers, functions, and duties of the office of the
Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, until further orders from this
Court.
3. (3) To DIRECT Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and the
associate justices of the Sandiganbayan to de_______________
Another instance of violation of the thirty-day reglementary period for resolving
motions for reconsideration.
85
Supra, pp. 17-18 of this resolution.
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.
86
706

1. cide/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.
2. (4) To ORDER the Sandiganbayan to comply with Supreme Court
Administrative Circular 10-94, effective immediately.
3. (5) To DIRECT the Sandiganbayan en banc to 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
This directive is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Buena, J., On official leave.
De Leon, Jr., J., See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

DE LEON, JR., 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
_______________
87
707

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 of 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: All
Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Courts, Branch Clerks of Courts but not to
Sandiganbayan Justices or the Clerk of Court and Division Clerks 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.
(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
The Supreme Court in Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not reduced the 12month 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.
708

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; Qualifications; Tenure; Removal and
CompensationA special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and
possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, to be known as the
Sandiganbayan is 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.
Respondent Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena meted a P20,000 fine for
inefficiency and gross neglect of duty and relieved of his powers, functions and duties
in order to devote his time to decision writing; Justices of Sandiganbayan ordered to
decide cases within 30 days from submission and to comply with SC Administrative
Circular 10-94; and to adopt not later than December 1, 2001 its own internal rules.
Note.Judges are mandated to dispose of the courts business promptly and decide
cases within the required period. (Tauro vs. Colet, 306 SCRA 340 [1999])
o0o

Re Problem of Delays in Cases Before The Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re Problem of Delays in Cases Before The Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

658

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In July 2000, the IBP Board of Governors submitted to the SC a resolution

In August 2000, the SC required Sandiganbayan PJ Garchitorena to comment

In September 2000, the SC received Sandiganbayans compliance report

In November 2000, the SC directed Court Administrator Benipayo to conduct

What is the reglementary period within which the Sandiganbayan must

On the other hand, the existing Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan

The periods to decide cases as provided in the Constitution refers to regular

The Sandiganbayan, however, is a special court. It is of the same level as

The Sandiganbayan was originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of

In Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) v. Court of

Similarly, in Cabagnot v. Comelec, this Court held that the Commission on

A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC. November 28, 2001.*