EN BANC

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

RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN
SYNOPSIS
A judicial audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) disclosed that the
Sandiganbayan has a backlog of 415 cases, 341 of which were in the First Division, chaired by Presiding
Justice Francis Garchitorena, and that at least 73 cases were unassigned. The cases submitted for decision
remained undecided beyond the reglementary period with several cases submitted as far back as 10 years
ago. Even in the updated audit conducted almost a year later, there were still 138 cases still undecided in
the First Division. It was also found that the First and Third Divisions unloaded cases already submitted
for decision to other divisions even if the ponente is still in service. Justice Garchitorena, who was earlier
warned by this Court in Canson vs. Garchitorena for his delay in the transfer of two criminal cases,
admitted the backlog of cases in his division.
The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possesses all the
inherent powers of a court of justice with functions of a trial court. P.D. 1606, creating the
Sandiganbayan, provides that judgment shall be rendered within 3 months from the date the case is
submitted for decision. Also, under its Revised Rules of Procedure, it is mandated to render judgment or
final order within 3 months from the date the case is submitted for decision. It ought to be the first to
observe its own rules. It cannot suspend its own rules, or except a case from its operation.
Decision making is the primordial and most important duty of the member of the bench. Hence, judges
are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Unreasonable delay in resolving cases, some as far back as
more than 10 years ago, constitutes gross neglect of duty and inefficiency.
When a case has been heard and tried before a division in the Sandiganbayan, it is ideal that the same
division and no other must decide it as far as practicable.
It is the duty of the Presiding Justice and the Chairmen of the 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 the ponente. Justice Garchitorena was fined P20,000.00 and was relieved of his duties as the
Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, and as Chairman of the First Division, so that he can devote himself
exclusively to decision writing until the backlog of cases are finally decided.
SYLLABUS
1.REMEDIAL LAW; SANDIGANBAYAN, A SPECIAL COURT OF THE SAME LEVEL AS 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
Sandiganbayan's 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 Shari'a
Courts." aATHES
2.ID.; ID.; JUDGMENT SHALL BE RENDERED WITHIN THREE (3), NOT TWELVE (12),
MONTHS FROM DATE THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED FOR DECISION. The law creating the
Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 1606 is clear on this issue. It provides: "Sec. 6. Maximum period for
termination of cases As far as practicable, the trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan once
commenced shall be continuous until terminated and the judgment shall be rendered within three (3)
months from the date the case was submitted for decision." On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan
promulgated its own rules, thus: "Sec. 3 Maximum Period to Decide Cases 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." 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.
3.ID.; ID.; CANNOT SUSPEND ITS OWN RULES OR EXCEPT A CASE FROM ITS OPERATION.
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 public's faith and confidence in it. The ratio decidendi in the aforecited
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.
4.ID.; SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 10-94 ON MANDATORY
PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF CASES, APPLIES TO SANDIGANBAYAN. Applicability of SC
Adm. Circular No. 10-94. 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. 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.
5.JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; SHOULD DECIDE CASES PROMPTLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY
ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. We reiterate the
admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000: "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. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes
gross inefficiency that warrants disciplinary sanction, including fine, suspension and even dismissal. 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. Delays
cannot be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the anti-graft court, the showcase of the nation's
determination to succeed in its war against graft (underscoring ours)."
6.REMEDIAL LAW; SANDIGANBAYAN; AS THE NATION'S ANTI-GRAFT COURT IT MUST BE
FIRST TO AVERT OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRAFT AND UPHOLD RIGHT OF ALL PERSONS TO A
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THEIR CASES. In Yuchengco v. Republic, we urged the Sandiganbayan
to promptly administer justice. We stated that the Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to amend and
control its processes and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan as the
nation's anti-graft court must be the first to avert opportunities for graft, uphold the right of all persons to
a speedy disposition of their cases and avert the precipitate loss of their rights.
7.ID.; ID.; 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 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.
8.ID.; ID.; FAILURE OF THE PRESIDING JUSTICE AND THE CHAIRMAN TO ASSIGN PONENTE
OF AN UNASSIGNED CASE RENDERS HIM PONENTE OF SAID CASE. 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. ETISAc
9.ID.; ACTIONS; WHEN IS A CASE DEEMED SUBMITTED FOR DECISION OR RESOLUTION.
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.

10.JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; UNREASONABLE DELAY IN RESOLVING CASE
CONSTITUTES GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY AND INEFFICIENCY. 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.
R E S O L U T I O N
PARDO, J p:
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
Resolution 1 addressing the problem of delays in cases pending before the Sandiganbayan (hereafter, the
Resolution). 2 We quote the Resolution in full: 3
"WHEREAS, Section 16, Article III of the Constitution guarantees that, "[a]ll persons
shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies";
"WHEREAS, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers
mandates that "[a] lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice";
"WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to undertake
measures to assist in the speedy disposition of cases pending before the various courts
and tribunals;
"WHEREAS, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has received numerous complaints
from its members about serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of
motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the
Sandiganbayan;
"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 requires all Regional
Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts to submit to the Supreme Court a bi-annual report indicating the title of the
case, its date of filing, the date of pre-trial in civil cases and arraignment in criminal
cases, the date of initial trial, the date of last hearing and the date that the case is
submitted for decision, and to post, in a conspicuous place within its premises, a
monthly list of cases submitted for decision;
"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not been made
applicable to the Sandiganbayan;
"WHEREAS, considering that the Sandiganbayan is also a trial court, the requirements
imposed upon trial courts by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 should
also be imposed upon the Sandiganbayan;
"NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines hereby resolves as follows:
"1.To recommend to the Supreme Court that Supreme Court Administrative Circular
No. 10-94 be made applicable to the Sandiganbayan in regard cases over which the
Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction; and
"2.To recommend to the Supreme Court an inquiry into the causes of delay in the
resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases before the
Sandiganbayan for the purpose of enacting measures intended at avoiding such delays.
"Done in Los 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
report 5 (hereafter, the compliance) admitting a number of cases submitted for decision and motion for
reconsideration pending resolution before its divisions. We quote:
"Cases SubmittedW/ Motions For
"For DecisionReconsideration
"1st Division341None
"2nd Division5None
"3rd Division12None
"4th Division5None
"5th Division521

"Total415" 6
Thus, the Sandiganbayan has a total of four hundred fifteen (415) cases for decision remaining undecided
long beyond the reglementary period to decide, with one case submitted as early as May 24, 1990, 7 and
motion for reconsideration which has remained unresolved over thirty days from submission. 8
On October 20, 2000, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a "schedule of
cases submitted for decision, the schedule indicating the number of detained prisoners, of which there are
(were) none." 9
On October 26, 2000, the IBP submitted its reply to the compliance stating: First, that it was not in a
position to comment on the accuracy of the compliance; nonetheless, it showed that there was much to be
desired with regard to the expeditious disposition of cases, particularly in the Sandiganbayan's First
Division, where cases submitted for decision since 1990 remained unresolved. Second, the compliance
did not include pending motions, and it is a fact that motions not resolved over a long period of time
would suspend and delay the disposition of a case. Third, since the Sandiganbayan is a trial court, it is
required to submit the same reports required of Regional Trial Courts. Fourth, the Constitution 10 states
that, "all lower collegiate courts" must decide or resolve cases or matters before it within twelve (12)
months "from date of submission"; however, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is required to resolve
and decide cases within a reduced period of three (3) months like regional trial courts, or at the most, six
(6) months from date of submission. 11
On November 21, 2000, the Court resolved to direct then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo
(hereafter, the OCA) "to conduct a judicial audit of the Sandiganbayan, especially on the cases subject of
this administrative matter, and to submit a report thereon not later than 31 December 2000." 12
On December 4, 2000, in a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena
admitted that the First Division of the Sandiganbayan 13 has a backlog of cases; that one case 14 alone
made the backlog of the First Division so large, involving 156 cases but the same has been set for
promulgation of decision on December 8, 2000, which would reduce the backlog by at least fifty percent
(50%). 15
On January 26, 2001, the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum to the Court 16 stating that the
causes of delay in the disposition of cases before the Sandiganbayan are: 17
(1)Failure of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to submit reinvestigation report
despite the lapse of several years;
(2)Filing of numerous incidents such as Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Quash,
Demurrer to Evidence, etc. that remain unresolved for years;
(3)Suspension of proceedings because of a pending petition for certiorari and
prohibition with the Supreme Court;
(4)Cases remain unacted upon or have no further settings despite the lapse of
considerable length of time; and
(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 pending incidents before the different
divisions of the Sandiganbayan," amounting to incompetence, inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and
misconduct in office.
We find no need to conduct a formal investigation of the charges in view of the admission of Justice
Francis E. Garchitorena in his compliance of October 20, 2000, that there are indeed hundreds of cases
pending decision beyond the reglementary period of ninety (90) days from the 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 afore-stated
reglementary period? (3) Is Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1094 applicable to the
Sandiganbayan? 19
The Court's 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
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 Constitution provides:
"SECTION 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 Sandiganbayan's power to promulgate its own rules of procedure 28 and instead prescribed
that the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed
with the Sandiganbayan. 29
"Special courts are judicial tribunals exercising limited jurisdiction over particular or specialized
categories of actions. They are the Court of Tax Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Shari'a Courts." 30
Under Article VIII, SECTION 5 (5) of the Constitution "Rules of procedure 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. 1606 34 is clear on this issue. 35 It provides:
"SECTION 6.Maximum period for termination of cases As far as practicable, the
trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan once commenced shall be continuous until
terminated and the judgment shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date
the case was submitted for decision."
On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules, 36 thus 37
"SECTION 3Maximum Period to Decide Cases 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 (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.
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 volte-
face moves that undermine the public's 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 cases 43 had not been decided: 44
First Division
Case TitleCase No.Date Submitted
for Decision
(1)People v. Paares12127May 24, 1990
(2)People v. Gabriel Duero11999December 11, 1990
(3)People v. Rhiza Monterozo133533December 14, 1990
(4)People v. Zenon R. Perez13353January 7, 1991
(5)People v. Bernardo B. Dayao, Jr.12305-12306February 7, 1991
(6)People v. Melquiades Ribo13521May 7, 1991
(7)People v. Carlos Benitez12102June 19, 1991
(8)People v. Salvador P. Nopre, et al.11156-11160August 9, 1991
(9)People v. Delfina A. Letegio12289August 28, 1991
(10)People v. Rodolfo A. Lasquite13618August 28, 1991
(11)People v. Potenciana Evangelista13679-13680September 3, 1991
(12)People v. RamonN. Guico, Jr. et al.16516December 2, 1991
(13)People v. Ruperto N. Solares16239January 10, 1992
(14)People v. Socorro Alto13708March 9, 1992
(15)People v. Tomas Baguio130151March 11, 1992
(16)People v. Felipa D. de Veyra13672April 13, 1992
(17)People v. Felicidad Tabang12139July 23, 1992
(18)People v. Jose S. Buguia14227September 9, 1992
(19)People v. Eleno T. Regidor, et al.13689-13695January 6, 1993
(20)People v. Serafin Unilongo14411February 2, 1993
(21)People v. Manual Parale, et al.15168June 21, 1993
(22)People v. Robert P. Wa-acon14375June 21, 1993
(23)People v. Linda J. Necessito13668July 13, 1993
(24)People v. Simon Flores16946August 4, 1993
(25)People v. Alejandro F. Buccat14986August 31, 1993
(26)People v. Irma Collera Monge15301March 9, 1994
(27)People v. Melencio F. Ilajas9977May 10, 1994
(28)People v. Buenaventura Q. Sindac, et al.13747-13748August 19, 1994
(29)People v. Jesus A. Bravo17514August 24, 1994
(30)People v. Raul S. Tello15006November 15, 1994
(31)People v. Celso N. Jacinto14975January 10, 1995
(32)People v. Mayor Antonio17670January 24, 1995
Abad Santos, et al.
(33)People v. Lamberto R. Te20588February 14, 1995
(34)People v. Ale Francisco21020July 18, 1995
(35)People v. Dir. Felix R.13563July 25, 1995
Gonzales, et al.
(36)People v. Mayor Adelina14324January 3, 1996
Gabatan, et al.
(37)People v. Victoria Posadas-Adona17202January 4, 1996
(38)People v. Roberto Estanislao Chang, et al.16854January 22, 1996
(39)People v. Godofredo Yambao, et al.16927-16928March 13, 1996
(40)People v. Honesto G. Encina13171April 26, 1996
(41)People v. Pablito Rodriguez13971May 10, 1996
(42)People v. Leandro A. Suller17759June 28, 1996
(43)People v. Trinidad M. Valdez16695August 26, 1996
(44)People v. Vivencio B. Patagoc19651January 27, 1997
(45)People v. Engr. Antonio B. Laguador14195March 31, 1997
(46)People v. Paterno C. Belcia, Jr.16583-16585March 31, 1997
(47)People v. SPO3 Serafin V. Reyes21608March 31, 1997
(48)People v. Mayor Samuel F. Bueser, et al.22195-22196March 31, 1997
(49)People v. Romeo C. Monteclaro14223May 6, 1997
(50)People v. Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo20948-20949October 17, 1997
(51)People v. Aniceto M. Sobrepea23324October 27, 1997
(52)People v. Marietta T. Caugma, et al.17001November 26, 1997
(53)People v. Mayor Meliton19708February 23, 1998
Geronimo, et al.
(54)People v. Fernando Miguel, et al.17600April 7, 1998
(55)People v. Rogelio A. Aniversario17601April 7, 1998
(56)People v. Corazon Gammad Leao9812-9967May 8, 1998
(57)People v. Teresita S. Lazaro17901June 8, 1998
(58)People v. Brig. Gen. Raymundo20688October 19, 1998
Jargue, et al.
(59)People v. Pros. Filotea Estorninos23509October 19, 1998
(60)People v. Orlando Mina19534-19545October 20, 1998
(61)People v. Vice Gov. Milagros A. Balgos23042October 20, 1998
(62)People v. Ceferino Paredes, Jr., et al.18857November 17, 1998
(63)People v. Brig. Gen. Raymundo18696January 15, 1999
Jarque, et al.
(64)People v. Mayor Agustin R.23336January 15, 1999
Escao, Jr.
(65)People v. Mayor Edgar V. Teves, et al.23374January 15, 1999
(66)People v. C/Supt. Alfonso T.22832January 29, 1999
Clemente, et al.
(67)People v. Dominica Santos19059-19063February 18, 1999
(68)People v. Edith G. Tico23273April 20, 1999
(69)People v. Sec. Hilarion J. Ramiro, et al.23511August 6, 1999
(70)People v. Timoteo A. Garcia, et al.24042-24098August 6, 1999
(71)People v. Mayor Jeceju L. Manaay24402August 6, 1999
(72)People v. Dir. Rosalinda Majarais, et al.24355August 18, 1999
(73)People v. Victor S. Limlingan24281August 13, 1999
(74)People v. Nestor S. Castillo, et al.24631August 31, 1999
(75)People v. Apolinar Candelaria22145September 6, 1999
(76)People v. Bernardo Billote Resoso19773-19779October 11, 1999
(77)People v. Atty. Alfredo Fordan24433-24434October 11, 1999
Rellora, et al.
(78)People v. Faustino Balacuit98December 22, 1999

(79)People v. Mayor Bernardino23418-23423January 6, 2000
Alcaria, Jr., et al.
(80)People v. Joel R. Lachica, et al.24319-24329January 6, 2000
(81)People v. Jose Micabalo, et al.24531-24534April 27, 2000
(82)People v. Mayor Eduardo Alarilla23069May 29, 2000
(83)People v. Pros. Nilo M. Sarsaba, et al.23323May 29, 2000
(84)People v. Philip G. Zamora24150May 29, 2000
Second Division*
Case TitleCase No.Date Submitted
for Decision
(1)People v. Marcelino Cordova, et al.18435August 11, 2000
(2)People v. Benjamin T. Damian22858August 11, 2000
(3)People v. Lino L. Labis, et al.22398July 18, 2000
(4)People v. Alfredo Sarmiento, et al.24407-24408August 11, 2000
Third Division**
Case TitleCase No.Date Submitted
for Decision
(1)People v. Sergia ZoletaA/R # 016November 16, 1999
(2)People v. Manuel Solon Y. TenchavesA/R # 029December 9, 1999
(3)People v. Eliseo L. Ruiz13861-13863April 6, 2000
(4)People v. Manuel R. Galvez, et al.13889September 30, 1999
(5)People v. Tolentino Mendoza, et al.16756August 28, 1999
(6)People v. Rodrigo Villas19563April 6, 2000
(7)People v. Ernesto Vargas19574April 6, 2000
(8)People v. Ernesto, Vargas, et al.20053April 6, 2000
(9)People v. Marcelo T. Abrenica, et al.23522July 6, 2000
(10)People v. Florencio Garay, et al.25657May 5, 2000
Fourth Division***
Case TitleCase No.Date Submitted
for Decision
(1)People v. Jaime Alos, et al.17664August 31, 1999
(2)People v. Antonio R. De Vera23366November 26, 1999
(3)People v. Aurora Mantele24841-42May 9, 2000
(4)People v. Olegario Clarin, Jr., et al.25198July 12, 2000
Fifth Division****
Case TitleCase No.Date Submitted
for Decision
(1)People v. Nestor A. Pablo13344January 16, 1998
(2)People v. Hernand D. Dabalus, et al.14397January 13, 1999
(3)People v. Eduardo Pilapil16672March 23, 2000
(4)People v. P/Sgt. Nazario Marifosque17030April 16, 1998
(5)People v. Ignacio B. Bueno17055September 12, 1995
(6)People v. Corazon G. Garlit17072March 31, 1997
(7)People v. Mayor Rufo Pabelonia, et al.17538November 14, 1995
(8)People v. Enrique B. Lenon, et al.17617March 13, 1996
(9)People v. Constancio Bonite, et al.17618-17619May 1, 1995
(10)People v. Jesus Villanueva17884January 9, 1996
(11)People v. Ricardo T. Liwanag, et al.18008March 9, 1998
(12)People v. Ma. Lourdes L. Falcon18036January 18, 1995
(13)People v. Luis D. Montero, et al.18684July 24, 1998
(14)People v. Roel D. Morales18699December 22, 1995
(15)People v. Diosdado T. Gulle18759October 18, 1995
(16)People v. Benjamin Sapitula, et al.18785August 31, 1995
(17)People v. Danilo R. Santos, et al.18932November 4, 1997
(18)People v. Pat. Danilo Maraon19039May 24, 1995
(19)People v. Romeo Cabando, et al.19378-19379May 27, 1996
(20)People v. SPO2 Rodolfo Burbos19593July 6, 1998
(21)People v. Guillermo M. Viray, et al.19614August 31, 1998
(22)People v. Mayor Bonifacio Balahay20427November 5, 1999
(23)People v. Enrique Sy, et al.20487December 17, 1998
(24)People v. PO2 Manuel L. Bien20648-20649March 31, 1998
(25)People v. Felipe L. Laodenio23066September 28, 1999
(26)People v. Mayor Walfrido A. Siasico23427January 16, 1998
* 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).
*** 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).
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 the packing and crating of
records; and that some boxes were still unopened. 47
We likewise find unacceptable Presiding Justice Garchitorena's excuse that one case alone 48 comprises
more that fifty percent (50%) of the First Division's backlog and that the same has been set for
promulgation on December 8, 2000. 49 As we said, a delay 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 promulgation 51 before the
five divisions of the Sandiganbayan are: 52
First Division
Case NumberDate Submitted
Criminal Cases
1.111568/9/91
2.111578/9/91
3.111588/9/91
4.111598/9/91
5.111608/9/91
6.1199912/10/90
7.121027/1/91
8.121272/12/90
9.121396/10/92
10.122898/28/91
11.123052/7/91
12.123062/7/91
13.130153/2/92
14.1317111/16/95
15.1335310/6/90
16.1352112/12/99
17.135637/4/95
18.136187/14/91
19.136686/13/93
20.136723/5/92
21.136798/6/91
22.136808/6/91
23.1368911/14/92
24.1369011/14/92
25.1369111/14/92
26.1369211/14/92
27.1369311/14/92
28.1369411/14/92
29.1369511/14/92
30.137083/9/92
31.137478/19/94
32.137488/19/94
33.139713/12/95
34.142233/7/97
35.142279/5/92
36.1423011/30/90
37.142877/3/94
38.1432411/5/95
39.143755/22/95
40.144111/24/93
41.149759/29/94
42.1498612/11/92
43.1500611/19/94
44.151683/25/93
45.153013/16/94
46.1623912/26/91
47.1651611/19/91
48.165838/13/96
49.165848/13/96
50.165858/13/96
51.166958/15/96
52.168541/15/96
53.1692712/17/95
54.1692812/17/95
55.169468/4/93
56.170019/4/97
57.172785/2/94
58.174479/6/94
59.174489/6/94
60.175148/19/94
61.176008/30/97
62.176018/30/97
63.1767011/25/94
64.177596/25/96
65.179015/28/98
66.182832/21/95
67.186968/9/98
68.1885710/21/98
69.190592/11/99
70.190602/11/99
71.190612/11/99
72.190622/11/99
73.190632/11/99
74.195349/2/98
75.195359/2/98
76.1965111/15/96
77.197088/25/98
78.197735/21/99
79.197745/21/99
80.197755/21/99
81.199765/21/99
82.199775/21/99
83.199785/21/99
84.199795/21/99
85.205882/14/95
86.206887/9/98
87.2094810/9/97
88.2094910/9/97
89.210207/4/95
90.221457/7/99
91.221956/14/96
92.221966/14/96
93.2283210/21/98
94.230428/27/98
95.2314611/13/00
96.232734/19/99
97.233233/23/00
98.233248/3/97
99.233369/4/97
100.2337412/17/98
101.2341810/15/99
102.2341910/15/99
103.2342010/15/99
104.2342110/15/99
105.2342210/15/99
106.2342310/15/99
107.235099/5/98
108.235114/23/99
109.2354010/15/99
110.240424/28/99
111.240434/28/99
112.240444/28/99
113.240454/28/99
114.240464/28/99
115.240474/28/99
116.240484/28/99
117.240494/28/99
118.240504/28/99
119.240514/28/99
120.240524/28/99
121.240534/28/99
122.240544/28/99
123.240554/28/99
124.240564/28/99
125.240574/28/99
126.240584/28/99
127.240594/28/99
128.240604/28/99
129.240614/28/99
130.240624/28/99
131.240634/28/99
132.240644/28/99
133.240654/28/99
134.240664/28/99
135.240674/28/99
136.240684/28/99
137.240694/28/99
138.240704/28/99
139.240714/28/99
140.240724/28/99
141.240734/28/99
142.240744/28/99
143.240754/28/99
144.240764/28/99
145.240774/28/99
146.240784/28/99
147.240794/28/99
148.240804/28/99
149.240814/28/99
150.240824/28/99
151.240834/28/99
152.240844/28/99
153.240854/28/99
154.240864/28/99
155.240874/28/99
156.240884/28/99
157.240894/28/99
158.240904/28/99
159.240914/28/99
160.240924/28/99
161.240934/28/99
162.240944/28/99
163.240954/28/99
164.240964/28/99
165.240974/28/99
166.240984/28/99
167.241501/31/00
168.242362/14/00
169.242372/14/00
170.242815/9/99
171.2431911/4/99
172.2432011/4/99
173.2432111/4/99
174.2432211/4/99
175.2432311/4/99
176.2432411/4/99
177.2432511/4/99
178.2432611/4/99
179.2432711/4/99
180.2432811/4/99
181.2432911/4/99
182.2433910/20/00
183.243552/18/99
184.243957/13/99
185.244026/17/99
186.244339/6/99
187.244349/6/99
188.2453112/16/99
189.2453212/16/99
190.2453312/16/99
191.2453412/16/99
192.246318/9/99
193.247687/8/00
194.66727/11/90
195.99775/10/94
Civil Case
1.01121/11/92
2.011610/16/91
3.01563/14/97
Second Division
Case NumberDate Submitted
Criminal Case
1.195424/16/99
2.190049/10/96
3.2293410/14/00
4.204838/28/96
5.204848/28/96
6.2352910/23/00
7.2353010/23/00
8.2333812/2/99
9.1878611/28/00
10.1968607/2/97
11.18440312/4/98
12.18440412/4/98
13.18440512/4/98
14.18440612/4/98
15.18440712/4/98

16.18440812/4/98
17.18440912/4/98
18.18441012/4/98
19.18441112/4/98
20.18441212/4/98
21.18441312/4/98
22.18441412/4/98
23.18441512/4/98
24.18441612/4/98
25.18441712/4/98
26.138278/30/00
27.138288/30/00
28.138298/30/00
29.138308/30/00
30.138318/30/00
31.138328/30/00
32.1896511/30/00
33.198483/28/96
34.207658/30/96
35.208163/11/98
36.196928/27/00
37.196938/27/00
38.196948/27/00
39.196958/27/00
40.196968/27/00
41.196978/27/00
42.196988/27/00
43.196998/27/00
44.197008/27/00
45.197018/27/00
46.197028/27/00
47.197038/27/00
48.197048/27/00
49.197058/27/00
50.197068/27/00
51.197078/27/00
52.2326210/11/00
53.AR#03512/9/00
54.249948/17/00
55.2109712/13/00
56.2066012/20/00
57.2311111/27/00
58.244077/27/00
59.244087/27/00
60.184353/21/00
61.228588/4/00
62.229765/4/99
Civil Case
1.01717/10/00
Third Division
Case NumberDate Submitted
1.SCA/00512/18/00
2.A/R 0168/5/99
3.A/R 02910/2/00
4.4874/8/98
5.4884/8/98
6.4894/8/98
7.4904/8/98
8.4914/8/98
9.117946/10/00
10.138614/6/00
11.138624/6/00
12.138634/6/00
13.138893/25/99
14.167568/25/99
15.1753212/11/00
16.1886710/5/00
17.1886810/5/00
18.1886910/5/00
19.1887010/5/00
20.1887110/5/00
21.1887210/5/00
22.191824/6/00
23.195634/6/00
24.195744/6/00
25.196224/6/00
26.196234/6/00
27.196244/6/00
28.200534/6/00
29.200544/6/00
30.2027112/18/00
31.2214312/18/00
32.230149/23/00
33.235227/6/00
34.236993/22/00
35.237003/22/00
36.237013/22/00
37.238029/10/00
38.238039/10/00
39.2415312/18/00
40.246979/10/00
41.246989/10/00
42.2474112/7/00
43.2477910/28/00
44.2478010/28/00
45.2478110/28/00
46.256575/5/00
Fourth Division
Case NumberDate Submitted
1.1196009/21/98
2.1766401/29/98
3.1303602/22/99
4.1303702/22/99
5.1359305/21/96
6.1359405/21/96
7.1375703/21/97
8.1438002/14/95
9.1680903/26/00
10.1701506/06/94
11.1701606/06/94
12.1714006/13/96
13.1714106/13/96
14.1720912/27/96
15.1780502/15/00
16.1780602/15/00
17.1780902/15/00
18.1785604/02/00
19.1800505/07/96
20.1800605/07/96
21.1825709/22/97
22.1889411/17/00
23.1889511/17/00
24.1889611/17/00
25.1890010/28/00
26.1893506/16/00
27.1893606/16/00
28.1893706/16/00
29.1956705/21/96
30.2033805/19/97
31.2046907/07/00
32.2047007/07/00
33.2047107/07/00
34.2047207/07/00
35.2047307/07/00
36.2047407/07/00
37.2047507/07/00
38.2047607/07/00
39.2066406/29/96
40.2068502/18/00
41.2082809/13/00
42.2109308/07/99
43.2113108/04/96
44.2177809/29/97
45.2177909/29/97
46.2178009/29/97
47.2289103/02/00
48.2289203/02/00
49.2300705/24/99
50.2305804/27/00
51.2305904/27/00
52.2306004/27/00
53.2306104/27/00
54.2306204/27/00
55.2336603/28/99
56.2341505/25/00
57.2353412/15/00
58.2370809/27/00
59.2444709/18/00
60.2444809/18/00
61.2446407/26/00
62.2446507/26/00
63.2474210/10/00
64.2484103/22/00
65.2484203/22/00
66.2485110/29/00
67.2519805/31/00
68.2538909/26/00
69.2554312/27/00
70.2565807/28/00
Fifth Division
Case NumberDate Submitted
Criminal Cases
1.143971/4/99
2.166722/13/00
3.170302/19/98
4.1782612/9/00
5.1782712/9/00
6.184788/21/00
7.186845/29/98
8.1888012/6/00
9.1951012/4/00
10.1951112/4/00
11.1951212/4/00
12.195936/5/98
13.196147/31/98
14.196687/26/98
15.201941/8/01
16.2042711/3/99
17.206481/4/98
18.206491/4/98
19.206943/11/98
20.218828/12/00
21.2218412/16/00
22.2287312/4/99
23.2292611/13/00
24.230668/16/99
25.233199/30/00
26.234509/16/00
27.235151/29/00
28.2415511/30/00
29.243798/27/00
30.247595/5/00
31.2485812/28/00
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 Court's order. The compliance report shows that to this day,
several cases that were reported pending by the Sandiganbayan on September 26, 2000, and likewise
reported undecided by the OCA on January 26, 2001, have not been decided/resolved. We quote the
compliance report: 56
First Division
CaseDatePonenteReason for
NumberSubmittedAssignedNot Deciding Case
194.1199912/10/90GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
195.121027/1/91GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
196.121272/12/90Not reported; unaccounted for the Sandiganbayan report
197.121396/10/92Castaneda*Under study, submitted before the
reorganization
* Justice Catalino R. Castaneda, Jr. joined the Sandiganbayan on September 24, 1997.
198.122898/28/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
199.12305-062/7/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
200.130153/2/92GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
201.1317111/16/95CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
202.1335310/6/90GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
203.1352112/12/99GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
204.135637/4/95GarchitorenaUnderstudy, submitted before the
reorganization
205.136187/14/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
206.136686/13/93CastanedaUnderstudy, submitted before the
reorganization
207.136723/5/92CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
208.13679-808/6/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
209.13689-9511/14/92CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
210.137083/9/92CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
211.13747-488/19/94CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
212.139713/12/95CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
213.142233/7/97Death of accused is unconfirmed and dismissal of the case
was held in abeyance. (Ong, J.)*
* Justice Gregory S. Ong was appointed to the Sandiganbayan on October 5, 1998.
214.142279/5/92CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
215.1423011/30/90CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
216.142877/3/94CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
217.1432411/5/95CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
218.143755/22/95CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
219.144111/24/93GarchitorenaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
220.149759/29/94CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
221.1498612/11/92CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
222.1500611/19/94CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
223.151683/25/93CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
224.153013/16/94CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
225.1623912/26/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
226.1651611/19/91CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
227.16583-858/13/96CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
228.166958/15/96CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
229.168541/15/96CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
230.16927-2812/17/95CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
231.169468/4/93CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
232.170019/4/97Not yet assigned
233.172785/2/94Death of accused is unconfirmed and dismissal of the case
was held in abeyance. (Ong, J.)
234.176008/30/97Not yet assigned
235.176018/30/97Not yet assigned
236.177596/25/96OngDecided and set for promulgation
237.179015/28/98Not yet assigned
238.186968/9/98Not yet assigned
239.1885710/21/98Not yet assigned
240.19059-632/11/99Not yet assigned
241.19534-359/2/98Not yet assigned
242.197088/25/98Not yet assigned
243.19773-795/21/99Not yet assigned
244.206887/9/98Not yet assigned
245.2094810/9/97Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
246.2094910/9/97Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
247.210207/4/95OngSet for Promulgation on November 27,
2001
248.221457/7/99Not yet assigned
249.22195-966/14/96CastanedaUnder study, submitted before the
reorganization
250.2283210/21/98Not yet assigned
251.230428/27/98Not yet assigned
252.2314611/13/00Not yet assigned
253.232734/19/99Not yet assigned
254.233233/23/00Not yet assigned
255.233248/3/97Not yet assigned
256.233369/4/97Not yet assigned
257.2337412/17/98Not yet assigned
258.23418-2310/15/99Not yet assigned
259.235099/5/98Not yet assigned
260.235114/23/99Not yet assigned
261.2354010/15/99Not yet assigned
262.24042-984/28/99OngSet for Promulgation on November 27,
2001
263.241501/31/00Not yet assigned
264.24236-372/14/00Not yet assigned
265.242815/9/99Not yet assigned
266.24319-2911/4/99Not yet assigned
267.24339-2910/20/99Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
268.243552/18/99Not yet assigned
269.243957/13/99Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
270.244026/17/99Not yet assigned
271.24433-349/6/99Not yet assigned
272.24531-3412/16/99Not yet assigned
273.246318/9/99Not yet assigned
274.247687/8/00Not yet assigned
275.66727/11/90GarchitorenaUnder study, before the reorganization
276.99775/10/94GarchitorenaUnder study, before the reorganization

277.01121/11/92Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
278.011610/16/91Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
279.01563/14/97Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Garchitorena, PJ.9
Cases Assigned to Castaneda, J.42
Cases Assigned to Ong, J.5
Cases not yet assigned73
Cases not accounted for or reported9

Total138
Second Division
CaseDatePonenteReason for
NumberSubmittedAssignedNot Deciding Case
63.195424/16/99For retaking of testimony due to incomplete TSN
64.13827-328/30/00VictorinoFor promulgation
65.1896511/30/00For retaking of testimony due to incomplete TSN
Third Division
CaseDatePonenteReason for
NumberSubmittedAssignedNot Deciding Case
47.SCA/00512/18/00Ilarde
48.A/R 02910/2/00Illarde
49.487-4914/8/98With pending demurrer to evidence, submitted, 01/26/01 re
Submitted, 03/20/01
50.117946/10/00De Castro
51.1753212/11/00Ilarde
52.18867-7210/5/00Pending trial per order dated 08/17/00
53.191824/6/00Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97
54.195634/6/00No Assignment
55.195744/6/00No Assignment
56.19622-244/6/00Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97.
57.20053-544/6/00Not with the 3rd Division
58.2027112/18/00Illarde
59.2214312/18/00De Castro
60.230149/23/00De Castro
61.23699-7013/22/00Ilarde
62.23802-039/10/00No Assignment
63.2415312/18/00No Assignment
64.24697-989/10/00Ilarde
65.2474112/7/00De Castro
66.24779-8110/28/00No Assignment
67.256575/5/00With Defense pending motion for the re-examination of the
Information and the parties' affidavits, etc. Order dated
08/31/01
Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Illarde, J.9
Cases Assigned to De Castro, J.4
Cases not yet assigned8
Others18

Total39
Fourth Division**
CaseDatePonenteReason for
NumberSubmittedAssignedNot Deciding Case
71.1196009/21/98Draft 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.
72.1680903/26/00Palattao
73.23058-6204/27/00Nario
74.2538909/26/00Nario
** The Fourth and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan were created only on September 25, 1997.
Fifth Division
CaseDatePonenteReason for
NumberSubmittedAssignedNot Deciding Case
32.143971/4/99Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel
33.166722/13/00Badoy, Jr,Inherited case/lack of personnel
34.170302/19/98Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel
35.184788/21/00EstradaInherited case/lack of personnel
36.186845/29/98Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel
37.1888012/6/00Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel
38.19510-1212/4/00EstradaInherited case/lack of personnel
39.195936/5/98Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel
40.196147/31/98Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel
41.201941/8/01Chico-NazarioComplicated Issues
42.2042711/3/99Badoy, Jr,Inherited case/lack of personnel
43.20648-491/4/98Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel
44.206943/11/98EstradaInherited case/lack of personnel
45.2292611/13/00No report, Unaccounted for by the Sandiganbayan report
46.230668/16/99Badoy, Jr.Inherited case/lack of personnel
47.2415511/30/00EstradaNot yet due
48.243798/27/00EstradaDraft decision released 7/31/01
Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Badoy, J. ***11
Cases Assigned to Estrada, J.7
Cases Assigned to Chico-Nazario, J.1
No report/Unaccounted For1

Total20
*** 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").
3.Applicability of SC Adm. Circular No. 10-94. Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the
Sandiganbayan.
Administrative Circular 10-94 57 directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases in their
dockets. The docket inventory procedure is as follows: 58
"a.Every trial judge shall submit not later than the last week of February and the last
week of August of each year a tabulation of all pending cases which shall indicate on a
horizontal column the following data:
"1.Title of the case
"2.Date of Filing
"3.Date arraignment in criminal cases of Pre-trial in civil cases and
"4.Date of initial trial
"5.Date of last hearing
"6.Date submitted for Decision
"b.The tabulation shall end with a certification by the trial judge that he/she has
personally undertaken an inventory of the pending cases in his/her court; that he/she
has examined each case record and initialed the last page thereof. The judge shall
indicate in his/her certification the date when inventory was conducted.
"c.The Tabulation and Certification shall be in the following form.
Docket Inventory for the Period
January ___ to June ______ July
To December ____, ______
(Indicate Period)

"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 initialed the last page
thereof, and I certify that the results of the inventory are correctly reflected in the above tabulation.
___________.
_______________
Presiding Judge"
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 inefficiency 61 that warrants disciplinary sanction including fine, 62
suspension 63 and even dismissal. 64 The rule particularly applies to justices of the
Sandiganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode the faith and confidence of our
people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bring it into disrepute. 65 Delays
cannot be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the anti-graft court, the showcase of the
nation's determination to succeed in its war against graft (italics ours)." TcDAHS
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 nation's anti-graft court must be the first to
avert opportunities for graft, uphold the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases and avert
the precipitate loss of their rights.
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 CaseDivisionDate
where caseSubmitted for
originatedDecision
1)17015PP vs. Raul Zapatos3rd06/06/94
2)17016PP vs. Raul Zapatos3rd06/06/94
3)14380PP vs. Francisco Ramoran3rd02/14/95
4)18005PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac3rd05/07/96
5)18006PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac3rd05/07/96
6)13593PP vs. Dominador Meninguito3rd05/30/96
7)13594PP vs. Dominador Meninguito3rd05/30/96
8)19567PP vs. Dominador Meninguito3rd05/30/96
9)17140PP vs. Jose Caf3rd06/13/96
10)17141PP vs. Jose Caf3rd06/13/96
11)20064PP vs. Ben dela Pena3rd07/01/96
12)21131PP vs. Rufino Mamanguin3rd08/05/96
13)17209PP vs. Isidro Catapang3rd12/27/96
14)13757PP vs. Catalino Daganzo3rd03/21/97
15)18257PP vs. Zenaida Sazon1st09/22/97
Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fifth Division
Case NumberDate Submitted
1.1026412/22/90
2.133445/14/97
3.162234/25/94
4.165745/30/95
5.167605/25/95
6.168101/23/96
7.170187/20/94
8.170557/5/95
9.171394/24/94
10.171622/23/95
11.171933/8/94
12.174262/12/94
13.174803/22/94
14.1753811/20/95
15.175672/24/93
16.175988/3/94
17.176173/28/96
18.176184/6/95
19.176194/6/95
20.176406/12/95
21.1766112/15/94
22.176668/25/97
23.1788411/12/95
24.179024/16/95
25.180089/15/97
26.184231/15/96
27.186879/30/94
28.1875910/12/95
29.187857/13/95
30.189324/20/97
31.1898810/25/95
32.1899912/21/95
33.190395/6/95
34.193784/17/96
35.193794/17/96
36.1967910/5/95
37.197122/18/95
38.199076/22/95
39.2048712/14/96
40.206247/15/95
41.234277/25/97
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:
First Division
Case NumberSubmitted forDate of Ponente
DecisionPromulgation
14195March 31, 1997November 10, 2000Ong
21608March 31, 1997November 15, 2000Ong
20588February 14, 1998January 12, 2001Ong
19651November 15, 1996January 26, 2001Ong
17670November 25, 1994January 26, 2001Ong
17447-48September 6, 1994February 22, 2001Ong
18283February 21, 1995February 23, 2001Ong
17514August 19, 1994April 24, 2001Ong
Second Division
Case NumberSubmitted forDate of Ponente
DecisionPromulgation
18403-18417December 4, 1998February 2, 2001Victorino
18435August 11, 2000March 26, 2001Victorino
18786November 28, 2000March 28, 2001Legaspi
19004September 10, 1996March 16, 2001Victorino
19692-19707August 27, 2000February 26, 2001Sandoval
19848March 28, 1996January 29, 2001Victorino
20483-20484July 26, 1995April 6, 2001Victorino
20660December 20, 2000August 2, 2001Legaspi
20765August 30, 1996February 23, 2001Victorino
20816March 11, 1998January 25, 2001Victorino
21097December 13, 2000June 15, 2001Victorino
22858August 11, 2000January 31, 2001Victorino
22934October 14, 2000February 15, 2001Sandoval
22976May 4, 1999March 1, 2001Sandoval
23111November 27, 2000March 14, 2001Sandoval
23262October 11, 2000May 16, 2001Victorino
23338December 2, 1999December 14, 2000Sandoval
23529-23530October 23, 2000March 28, 2001Victorino
24407-24408August 11, 2000January 24, 2001Legaspi
24994August 17, 2000May 30, 2001Sandoval
AR#035December 9, 2000August 28, 2001Legaspi
Third Division
Case NumberSubmitted forDate of Ponente
DecisionPromulgation
A/R 016November 16, 1999January 26, 2001Ilarde
13861-13863April 6, 2000December 22, 2000Del Rosario
13889September 30, 1999May 10, 2001Ilarde
16756August 28, 1999December 11, 2000Del Rosario
23522July 6, 2000January 12, 2001Del Rosario
Fourth Division
Case NumberSubmitted forDate of Ponente
DecisionPromulgation
17664August 31, 1999June 1, 2000Palattao
17016June 6, 1994March 27, 2001Ferrer
17140-41June 13, 1996February 6, 2001Nario
17209December 27, 1996April 30, 2001Ferrer
17805-09;February 15, 2000October 10, 2001Palattao
17814
17856April 2, 2000June 25, 2001Palattao
18005-06May 7, 1996May 18, 2001Ferrer
18257September 22, 1997July 26, 2001Ferrer
18894-96November 17, 2000March 20, 2001Palattao
18900October 28, 2000March 23, 2001Ferrer
18935-37June 16, 2000January 18, 2001Palattao
19567May 21, 1996January 15, 2001Ferrer
20338May 19, 1997February 9, 2001Ferrer
20469July 7, 2000June 25, 2001Palattao
13036-37February 22, 1999February 28, 2001Ferrer
13593-94May 21, 1996January 15, 2001Ferrer
20470-76July 7, 2000June 25, 2001Palattao
20664June 29, 1996February 20, 2001Ferrer
20685February 18, 2000March 2, 2001Palattao
20828September 13, 2000October 8, 2001Palattao
21093August 7, 1999January 15, 2001Palattao
21131August 4, 1996February 13, 2001Ferrer
21778-80September 29, 1997June 21, 2001Ferrer
22891-92March 2, 2000December 13, 2000Ferrer
23007May 24, 1999March 14, 2000Ferrer
13757March 21, 1997July 2, 2001Ferrer
14380February 14, 1995April 23, 2001Ferrer
17015June 6, 1994March 27, 2001Ferrer
23366November 26, 1999October 29, 2001Ferrer
23415May 25, 2000May 28, 2001Palattao
23534December 15, 2000February 28, 2001Palattao
23708September 27, 2000September 10, 2001Nario
24464-65July 26, 2000June 26, 2001Nario
24742October 10, 2000March 22, 2001Ferrer
24841-42May 9, 2000March 7, 2001Ferrer
25198July 12, 2000February 6, 2001Nario
25543December 27, 2000February 26, 2001Palattao
25658July 28, 2000July 20, 2001Palattao
24447-48September 18, 2000December 7, 2001Palattao
Fifth Division
Case NumberSubmitted forDate of Ponente
DecisionPromulgation
17826-17827December 9, 2000March 28, 2001Chico-Nazario
19668July 26, 1998February 9, 2001Badoy, Jr.
21882August 12, 2000July 25, 2001Chico-Nazario
22184December 16, 2000May 21, 2001Chico-Nazario
22873December 4, 1999May 31, 2001Chico-Nazario
23319September 30, 2000April 23, 2001Chico-Nazario
23450September 16, 2000March 16, 2001Chico-Nazario
23515January 29, 2000May 28, 2001Cortez-Estrada
24759May 5, 2000July 10, 2001Cortez-Estrada
24858December 28, 2000May 31, 2001Chico-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 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 transcripts 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 ranging from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to the equivalent of their one
month's salary. 79 According to the report of the Sandiganbayan, as of September 26, 2000, there were
three hundred forty one (341) cases submitted for decision before its first division headed by the Presiding
Justice. In the memorandum of the OCA, there were one hundred ninety eight (198) cases reported
submitted for decision before the First Division. 80 Even in the updated report, there are one hundred
thirty eight (138) cases still undecided in the First Division.
In fact, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that he has a backlog. 81 He claimed that one
(1) case alone comprises fifty percent (50%) of the backlog. We find this claim exaggerated. We cannot
accept that a backlog of three hundred forty one (341) cases in the First Division could be eliminated by
the resolution of a single consolidated case of one hundred fifty six (156) counts. A consolidated case is
considered only as one case. The cases referred to were consolidated as Criminal Case Nos. 9812-9967,
People v. Corazon Gammad-Leao, 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

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)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)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)To DIRECT Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and the associate justices of the Sandiganbayan
to decide/resolve the undecided cases submitted for decision as of this date, within three (3) months from
their submission, and to resolve motions for new trial or reconsiderations and petitions for review within
thirty (30) days from their submission. With respect to the backlog of cases, as hereinabove enumerated,
the Sandiganbayan shall decide/resolve all pending cases including incidents therein within six (6)
months from notice of this resolution.
(4)To ORDER the Sandiganbayan to comply with Supreme Court Administrative Circular 10-94,
effective immediately.
(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, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Buena, J., is on official leave.
Separate Opinions
DE LEON, J.,concurring and dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the resolution of Mr. Justice Bernardo P. Pardo insofar as it declares and rules
that the judgment of any division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months, and not
within twelve (12) months, from the date the case was submitted for decision.
The resolution cites Section 6 of P.D. No. 1606 which requires that the judgment of the Sandiganbayan
"shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision". The said
provision was apparently adopted by the Sandiganbayan in Section 3 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:
SECTION 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 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."
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
Compensation A 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.