LOPEZ, Jr. vs OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN GR NO.140529 FACTS: Petitioner Lopez, Jr.

was the Administrative Officer of DECS in Cotobato City. A report on the special audit regarding the purchase by DECS of school equipment and laboratory apparati was received by the Office of the Ombudsman. Finding the audit report sufficient to conduct a preliminary investigation the same was docketed as Case No. OMB-3-93-2791. On April 22, 1994, the petitioner submitted to the Office of Ombudsman-Mindanao his Counter-Affidavit denying specifically each and every criminal act attributed to him by the Commission on Audit. More than four (4) years after he submitted his Counter-Affidavit, the petitioner was surprised that, without preliminary investigation and clarificatory question asked, on July 17, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao terminated the preliminary investigation recommending that he, together with the other respondents in Case No. OMB 3-93-9791, be prosecuted for violation of Sec. 3(e) and (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. ISSUE: Is there a violation of right to speedy disposition of cases? RULING: The constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases is not limited to criminal proceedings but extends to civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any party to a case may demand expeditious action on all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice. The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or even without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant is weighed, and such factors as the length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay. The concept of speedy disposition is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. The delay in this case disregarded the Ombudsmans duty, as mandated by the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770, to enforce the criminal liability of government officers or employees in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service to the people. The failure of said office to resolve the complaints that have been pending for almost four years is clearly violative of this mandate and the rights of petitioner as a public official. In such event, petitioner is entitled to the dismissal of the cases filed against him.

LEJANO vs PEOPLE

FACTS: This is a motion for reconsideration of the Decision of the SC, acquitting accused Hubert Webb et.al. of the crime against them, filed by Lauro Vizconde. ISSUE: Whether or not double jeopardy exists RULING: YES. To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished for the crime of which he has already been absolved. There is reason for this provision of the Constitution. In criminal cases, the full power of the State is ranged against the accused. If there is no limit to attempts to prosecute the accused for the same offense after he has been acquitted, the infinite power and capacity of the State for a sustained and repeated litigation would eventually overwhelm the accused in terms of resources, stamina, and the will to fight. As the Court said in People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan: [A]t the heart of this policy is the concern that permitting the sovereign freely to subject the citizen to a second judgment for the same offense would arm the government with a potent instrument of oppression. The provision therefore guarantees that the State shall not be permitted to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty. Societys awareness of the heavy personal strain which a criminal trial represents for the individual defendant is manifested in the willingness to limit the government to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate its very vital interest in the enforcement of criminal laws. A motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible. But the grounds are exceptional and narrow as when the court that absolved the accused gravely abused its discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. In any of such cases, the State may assail the decision by special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.