Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
SPEEDY TRIAL
10.) ANGHNANGCO, Jr. vs OMBUDSMAN, G.R. No. 268 SCRA 301
FACTS: A complaint of graft, estafa/malversation and misconduct relative to the enforcement of
the writ of execution was filed before the Ombudsman against petitioner. Although the administrative aspect of the complaints had already been dismissed, the criminal complaints remained pending and unresolved, prompting petitioner to file several omnibus for early resolution. Petitioner’s request for clearance in order that he may qualify to receive his retirement benefits was denied because of the pending criminal cases against him. Remaining unresolved for 6 years, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss but was not acted upon. Hence petitioner filed a mandamus against the Ombudsman to dismiss the his pending cases and to direct the Ombudsman to issue a clearance in favour of petitioner.
ISSUE: Is the inordinate delay of more the 6 years by the Ombudsman in resolving the criminal complaints against petitioner to be violative of his constitutional right to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him?
RULING: YES. Verily, the Office of the Ombudsman in the instant case has failed to discharge its duty mandated by the Constitution "to promptly act on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials and employees of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof." Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its chief use and not a discretionary duty. It is nonetheless likewise available to compel action, when refused, in matters involving judgment and discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of either (Rules of Court in the Philippines, Volume III by Martin, 4th Edition, page 233). It is correct, as averred in the comment that in the performance of an official duty or act involving discretion, the corresponding official can only be directed by mandamus to act, but not to act one way or the other. However, this rule admits of exceptions such as in cases where there is gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority (Kant Kwong vs. PCGG, 156 SCRA 222, 232 [1987]). Here, the Office of the Ombudsman, due to its failure to resolve the criminal charges against petitioner for more than six years, has transgressed on the constitutional right of petitioner to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him, as well as the Ombudsman's own constitutional duty to act promptly on complaints filed before it. For all these past 6 years, petitioner has remained under a cloud, and since his retirement in September 1994, he has been deprived of the fruits of his retirement after serving the government for over 42 years all because of the inaction of respondent Ombudsman. If we wait any longer, it may be too late for petitioner to receive his retirement benefits, not to speak of clearing his name. This is a case of plain injustice which calls for the issuance of the writ prayed for.
