RESOLUTION - Sandiganbayan Home Pagesb.judiciary.gov.ph/RESOLUTIONS/2017/H_Crim_SB-17 … · · 2017-08-23crime of slight physical injuries as cited in the Revised Penal Code

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

Quezon City

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

-versus- SB-17 -CRM-0652For: Slight Physical Injuries

COL. CRISTOBAL NOCILLADO ZARAGOSA,Accused.

Present:

DE LA CRUZ, J., ChairpersonECONG, J. andCALDONA, J.

Promulgated:

AUG 24 2017 LI~'

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

CALDONA, J.:

For resolution of the court is the Motion to Quash Information Ex

Abundanti Ad Cautela dated August 1, 2017, filed by the accused,

Cristobal Nocillado Zaragosa, through counsel, and the

Comment/Opposition thereon dated August 8, 2017, filed by the

prosecution.

, ,"

ResolutionCriminal Case No. SB-17 -CRM-0652Pp vs. Col. Cristobal Nocillado ZaragosaP age 12 of 11x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

The accused-movant seeks the quashal of the information on the

following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged based

on Section 3 (b), Rule 1171 of the Rules of Court; (2) prescription of the

offense under Section 3 (g)2 of the same Rule; and (3) inordinate delay

in the disposition of his case before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Anent the first ground, the accused-movant contended that the

crime of slight physical injuries as cited in the Revised Penal Code

under Title VIII on Crimes Against Persons is clearly not included among

any of the offenses covered by Section 2 of Republic Act (RA) No.

106603 amending Section 4 of Presidential Decree (PO) No. 1606.

Accused-movant asseverated that while the closest provision that may

be applicable to the instant case is in paragraph (b)4 thereof, the same

finds no application herein because the act complained of was not

committed in relation to his office contrary to the allegation in the

information. He pointed out that he was then the Assistant Chief of the

United Command Staff for Intelligence (U2) of Eastern Mindanao

Command. His office and duty were related to the intelligence function

of the command. On the other hand, the complainant, although

assigned in Eastern Mindanao Command, was not involved with his

office inasmuch as the latter was then a staff (driver) of the United

Command's Adjutant which was separate and distinct from the office of

the accused-movant. While the complainant and the accused-movant

may be in the same vicinity and command, the duties of the latter in the

discharge of his functions are not related to the complainant's official

I Section 3 - Grounds. x x x(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged.2 (g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished.3 An Act Strengthening Further The Functional And Structural Organization Of TheSandiganbayan, Further Amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, andappropriating Funds Therefor.4 {Q} OthQr Qff<;illv\iv or felonies wneiner SImple or complexed with other crimes committed bythe public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in relation totheir office.

ResolutionCriminal Case No. S8-17 -CRM-0652Pp vs. Col. Cristobal Nocillado ZaragosaP age 13 of 11x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

functions. Even assuming arguendo that the act complained of was

committed in relation to his office, he opined that the same was in the

exercise of a "brotherly reminder that a member of the Armed Forces of

the Philippines can offer another comrade".

Regarding the second ground on prescription of the offense, the

accused-movant pointed out that it took the Office of the Ombudsman

almost four (4) years before issuing its Joint Resolution from the time he

submitted his Counter-Affidavit on October 15, 2012. According to him,

the alleged incident took place on July 5, 2012 and the complainant filed

his affidavit-complaint on July 18, 2012. However, the Joint Resolution

of the Office of the Ombudsman was issued only on June 21,2016. The

offense charged being a light offense, the same prescribes in two (2)

months as provided under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Citing Article 91 of the RPC, the accused-movant advanced the

contention that the offense for which he stands charged already

prescribed because the running of the period commenced when the

proceedings have unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to

him, that is, after he filed his counter-affidavit. The Office of the

Ombudsman could have resolved the case within a reasonable period of

time but it took almost four (4) years for it to do so.

Corollarily, accused-movant posited that his constitutional right to

speedy disposition of his case has been violated due to the inordinate

delay which the same office took in resolving the complaint against him.

In its CommenUOpposition, the prosecution countered that the

offense charged was committed in relation to the office of the accused-

movant who, based on his own admission in his position


submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman, had the right and duty to

instill military discipline among the personnel within his jurisdiction.

What determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is the specific

factual allegation in the information that would indicate close intimacy

between the discharge of the accused-movant's official duties and the

commission of the offense charged. In this regard, the prosecution

alluded to the pertinent portion of the information to underscore the point

that the crime charged in this case is clearly alleged as having been

committed in relation to the discharge of official functions of the

accused-movant, to wit:

That on 5 July 2012, or sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in Davao City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction ofthis Honorable Court, accused Col. Cristobal NocilladoZaragoza, a high ranking public officer, being then a member ofthe Philippine Army, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP),holding the rank of Colonel, committing the offense in relation tohis office in that it was committed while in his actualperformance of his official duties as a superior military officer, inthe guise of instilling military discipline to a subordinate officer,taking advantage of his position and in grave abuse thereof, didthen and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,assault and use personal violence upon the person of Edwin M.Piodos, also a member of the AFP, by punching ,the latter'sstomach several times, thereby inflicting upon him physicalinjury (soft issue contusion, epigastric area) with probablehealing time of three to five days. (Underscoring ours)

CONTRARY TO LAW.

As regards the issues of prescription and inordinate delay, the

prosecution cited the case of Mendoza-Ong vs. Sandiganbayan, et a/.5

wherein the Supreme Court took judicial notice of the fact that the nature

of the Office of the Ombudsman encourages individuals who clamor for

efficient government service to lodge freely their complaints against

alleged wrongdoing of government personnel as a result of which a

5 GR Nos. 146368-69, October 18,2004.


steady stream of cases inevitably results. Naturally, said the high court,

disposition of those cases would take some time. Besides, pursuant to

the case of People vs. Del Roserid', prescription was interrupted by the

filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again

when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted

or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to

him.

In addition, the prosecution pointed out that the instant motion,

though filed in the guise of a motion to quash, is actually a motion to

dismiss the complaint which is a prohibited pleading under the Revised

Rule on Summary Procedure that governs the instant case.

At this juncture, it may be conceded outright from a reading of the

above-quoted information for the offense of slight physical injuries that

sufficient allegations have been set out in order to establish that the

crime was purportedly committed by the accused-movant in relation to

his office. Hence, the said ground for the instant motion to quash IS

bereft of any valid basis.

Likewise, slight physical injuries under Article 266 of the Revised

Penal Code, a light offense, prescribes in two (2) months that is, sixty

(60) days, pursuant to Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. The

computation of the prescriptive period therefor is provided under Article

91 of the Revised Penal Code, viz:

Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. - Theperiod of prescription shall commence to run from the day onwhich the crime is discovered by the offended party, theauthorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filingof the complaint or information, and shaJJ commence to run

6 GR No. L-15140, December 29, 1960.


again when such proceedings terminate without the accusedbeing convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for anyreason not imputable to him.

In the instant case, the affidavit-complaint was filed with the Office

of the Ombudsman on July 18, 2012, or thirteen (13) days after the

alleged incident on July 5, 2012. The filing thereof effectively tolled the

running of the prescriptive period of the offense. The case of People vs

Beutisie' is instructive as to when the prescriptive period commences to

run after the filing of the complaint with the office of the prosecutor, thus:

It is not disputed that the filing of the Complaint with the OCPeffectively interrupted the running of the 60-day prescriptiveperiod for instituting the criminal action for slight physicalinjuries. However, the sole issue for resolution in this case iswhether the prescriptive period began to run anew after theinvestigating prosecutor's recommendation to file the propercriminal information against respondent was approved by theCity Prosecutor.

x x x

The CA and respondent are of the view that upon approvalof the investigating prosecutor's recommendation for the filing ofan information against respondent, the period of prescriptionbegan to run again. The Court does not agree. It is a well-settled rule that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's officesuspends the running of the prescriptive period.

The proceedings against respondent was not terminatedupon the City Prosecutor's approval of the investigatingprosecutor's recommendation that an information be filed withthe court. The prescriptive period remains tolled from the timethe complaint was filed with the Office of the Prosecutor untilsuch time that respondent is either convicted or acquitted by theproper court.

The Office of the Prosecutor miserably incurred some delayin filing the information but such mistake or negligence shouldnot unduly prejudice the interests of the State and the offendedparty. As held in People v. Olarte, it is unjust to deprive theinjured party of the right to obtain vindication on account ofdelays that are not under his control. All that the victim of the

7 GR No. 168641, April 27, 2007.

ResolutionCriminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-0652Pp vs. Col. Cristobal Nocillado ZaragosaP age 17 of 11x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

offense may do on his part to initiate the prosecution is to filethe requisite complaint.

While in the aforequoted decision, the complaint was filed with the

office of the prosecutor, the same rationale applies to the instant case

wherein the complaint was lodged before the Office of the

Ombudsman". Thus, the prescriptive period remained suspended after

the filing of the complaint with the latter office. Accordingly, the

contention of the accused-movant that the offense has prescribed in

light of Article 91 of the RPC holds no water.

At any rate, it is worthy to note that it took almost five (5) years

from the filing of the affidavit-complaint on July 18, 2012 for the Office of

the Ombudsman to finally wrap up the conduct. of the preliminary

investigation with the denial of the accused-movant's motion for

reconsideration in its Joint Order dated January 20, 2017. On this

score, the accused-movant ascribes inordinate delay which, in effect,

constitutes a violation of his constitutional right to speedy disposition of

his case as enshrined under Section 16, Article III of the 1987

Constitution.

The right to speedy disposition of cases can be invoked when, as

In the present case, considerable delay occurred in the conduct of

preliminary investigation of a simple case of slight physical injuries

which, when filed in court, is ordinarily governed by the Revised Rule on

Summary Procedure. Such rule frowns upon foot-dragging in the

disposition of cases falling within its coverage.

/g Llenes vs. Dicdican, G.R. No. 122274, July 31, 1996.


In a number of cases, including Coscolluela vs. Sandiganbayan9,

as affirmed in Torres vs Sandiganbayan 10, the Supreme Court applied

the "balancing test" where four (4) factors are used as guidelines in the

determination of whether the constitutional right to speedy disposition of

cases is violated, namely: 1) the length of delay; 2) the reason for the

delay; 3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and

4) the prejudice caused by the delay.

To justify its procedural lag, the Office of the Ombudsman could

only invoke jurisprudence where it was apparently acknowledged that its

office is saddled with a "steady stream of cases" occasioned by the filing

of complaints relative to alleged wrongdoing of government personnel.

However, such a pronouncement by the high court cannot be used as

an unbridled license as if it is a protective shield to justify every

protracted investigation; but should be on a case-to-case or an ad hoc

basis taking into consideration the attendant facts therein 11.

To reiterate, the offense charged herein is slight physical injuries

which does not entail complex issues to be resolved nor voluminous

documents to be pored over before the preliminary investigation can be

concluded. In fact, the record reveals that the graft investigation officer

had to contend with a mere two (2)-page complaint-affidavit with a

single-page medical certificate and a police blotter as Annexes "A" and

"8", together with the six (6)-page counter-affidavit of the therein

respondent devoid of any attachment, in his investigation. Verily, four

(4) years is too long a time for the Office of the Ombudsman just to

finally come out with its resolution finding probable cause against the

accused.

9GR No. 1e1411, July 15,2013.IOGR Nos. 221562-69, October 5, 2016.11 Corpuz vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162214, November 11,2004.


It cannot be gainsaid that the longer period it takes to resolve a

case often works more to the disadvantage of the accused. The

Supreme Court had occasion to stress such prejudice on the accused in

the same case of Coscolluela vs. Sandiganbayan12 the following:

Lest it be misunderstood, the right to speedy dispositionof cases is not merely hinged towards the objective of spurringdispatch in the administration of justice but also to prevent theoppression of the citizen by holding a criminal prosecutionsuspended over him for an indefinite time. Akin to the right tospeedy trial, its "salutary objective" is to assure that an innocentperson may be free from the anxiety and expense of litigationor, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortestpossible time compatible with the presentation andconsideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he mayinterpose. This looming unrest as well as the tacticaldisadvantages carried by the passage of time should beweighed against the State and in favor of the individual. In thecontext of the right to a speedy trial, the Court in Corpuz v.Sandiganbayan (Corpuz) illumined: I

A balancing test of applying societal interests and therights of the accused necessarily compels the court to approachspeedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis.

x x x Prejudice should be assessed in the light of theinterest of the defendant that the speedy trial was designed toprotect, namely: to prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration; tominimize anxiety and concerns of the accused to trial; and tolimit the possibility that his defense will be impaired. Of these,the most serious is the last, because the inability of a defendantadequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entiresystem. There is also prejudice if the defense witnesses areunable to recall accurately the events of the distant past. Even ifthe accused is not imprisoned prior to trial, he is stilldisadvantaged by restraints on his liberty and by living under acloud of anxiety, suspicion and often, hostility. His financialresources may be drained, his association is curtailed, and he issubjected to public obloquy.

Indeed, such unjustified delay on the part of the Office of the

Ombudsman in conducting preliminary investigation involving

12 Ibid.

ResolutionCriminal Case No. S8-17 -CRM-0652Pp vs. Col. Cristobal Nocillado ZaragosaP age I 10 of 11x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

case of slight physical injuries constitutes a violation of the constitutional

right of the accused to a speedy disposition of his case. It bears

stressing that in the case of Corpuz vs. Sandiganbayan 13, the Supreme

Court held that while the Office of the Ombudsman or Special

Prosecutor is saddled with other cases of equal, if not of more

importance than the cases involved therein, the delay in the

investigation or reinvestigation was unjustified and that it is bound under

the constitution and other laws to act promptly on complaints filed

against public officials or employees, thus:

Undeniably, the Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor issaddled with cases of equal, if not of more importance than thecases against the petitioners. However, this is not a validjustification for an inordinate delay of one (1) year in thetermination of the reinvestigation of the cases. The Prosecutorshould have expedited the reinvestigation not only because hewas ordered by the Sandiganbayan to submit a report withinsixty (60) days, but also because he is bound to do so under theConstitution, and under Section 13 of Rep. Act No. 6770:

The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectorsof the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed inany form or manner against public officials or employeesof the Government, or any subdivision, agency orinstrumentality thereof, including government-owned orcontrolled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases,notify the complainants of the action taken and theresults thereof. (Section 12, Article XI of the 1987

. Constitution)

The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectorsof the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed inany form or manner against public officials or employeesof the Government, or any subdivision, agency orinstrumentality thereof, including government-owned orcontrolled corporations, and enforce their administrative,civil and criminal liability in every case where theevidence warrants in order to promote efficient service bythe government to the people. (Section 13, Republic ActNo. 6770)

13 Supra.

ResolutionCriminal Case No. S8-17-CRM-0652Pp vs. Col. Cristobal Nocillado ZaragosaP age I 11 of 11x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Consequently, the Office of the Ombudsman is deemed to have been

ousted of authority to file the instant complaint against the accused-

movant on the ground of inordinate delay; thereby warranting the

quashal of the information in this case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant motion to quash

the information filed by the accused-movant, Col. Cristobal Nocillado

Zaragosa, through counsel, is GRANTED and that the information in the

instant criminal complaint should be, as it is hereby quashed.

The Hold Departure Order (HDO) dated April 3, 2017 is hereby

recalled.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

(L_LZJ.' ~ lltl. OtLQ.lIK-l''''----L_u-''-~T'i\RDOM. CALDc5NA

ssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

EFREN ~ frtE LA CRUZAssoci~t~ Justice

Chairperson

~ ~ MmtfJGERALDINE FAITH A. EtONG

Associate Justice

Documents

RESOLUTION - Sandiganbayan Home Pagesb.judiciary.gov.ph/RESOLUTIONS/2017/H_Crim_SB-17 … · · 2017-08-23crime of slight physical injuries as cited in the Revised Penal Code