‘REVENGE OF THE CLOCK’: Sandiganbayan dismisses Mabilog graft case over Ombudsman delay

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

ILOILO CITY — The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the graft case against former Iloilo City Mayor Jed Patrick E. Mabilog due to delays in the proceedings.

Mabilog, who served as city mayor from 2010 to 2017, was appointed undersecretary for public safety of the Department of the Interior and Local Government on May 13, 2026, roughly a year after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. granted him executive clemency over a separate administrative case.

In a Third Division resolution penned by its chairperson, Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda, and promulgated Aug. 12, 2026, the anti-graft court granted Mabilog’s motion to quash in Criminal Case No. SB-23-CRM-0035, with three of five justices voting to grant and two voting to deny.

Miranda was joined by fellow associate justices Fritz Bryn Anthony M. Delos Santos and Zaldy V. Trespeses in voting in favor of the motion, while justices Ronald B. Moreno and J. Ermin Ernest Louie R. Miguel voted to deny it.

Sandiganbayan divisions are composed of three justices. Trespeses and Miguel were designated to a special division of five under Administrative Order No. 204-2026, dated July 7, 2026, to participate in resolving the motion.

The majority found that the Office of the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation was marred by inordinate delay, violating Mabilog’s right to speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

The anti-graft court focused on the significant dates pertaining to the Ombudsman’s action, particularly from the filing of the complaints to the responses.

Manuel Mejorada filed the first complaint-affidavit against the then-mayor on April 23, 2015, alleging violations of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019.

The Section 3(h) charge that Mabilog ultimately faced originated in a supplemental affidavit-complaint filed on Sept. 8, 2015, by then-Councilor Plaridel Cordero Nava II, who would later be named as Mabilog’s co-accused in the case.

Three days later, on Sept. 11, 2015, Mabilog filed his own complaint-affidavit against Nava for violation of Sections 3(a), 3(h), and 3(i) of the same law.

The last pleading in the preliminary investigation was Nava’s counter-affidavit, which the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas received on Nov. 26, 2015.

The Ombudsman issued its Consolidated Resolution on March 28, 2017.

Mabilog sought to reverse that resolution through a motion for reconsideration on Oct. 3, 2017, followed a few days later by Nava on Oct. 9, 2017.

The Ombudsman issued a Consolidated Order on June 28, 2019, affirming with finality its earlier resolution.

The court noted that the Consolidated Order ran two pages and merely affirmed the Consolidated Resolution.

But the Information, dated May 19, 2022, was only filed before the Sandiganbayan on March 2, 2023.

The court noted that it took one year, four months, and two days from receipt of the last pleading for the Ombudsman to issue its Consolidated Resolution, and one year, eight months, and 19 days from the filing of the last motion for reconsideration to issue its Consolidated Order.

The Information was issued two years, 10 months, and 21 days after the Consolidated Order, while another nine months and 11 days elapsed before the Information was filed in court.

From the filing of Mejorada’s complaint to the filing of the Information, the court counted a total lapse of seven years, 10 months, and seven days.

The prosecution attributed the delays to the layers of review required for the approval of the Ombudsman’s Consolidated Resolution, the transfer of records between the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas in Cebu City and the central office during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the transition from former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales to Samuel R. Martires.

The court found that the prosecution sufficiently explained the delay in the issuance of the Consolidated Resolution but failed to justify the delays in issuing the Consolidated Order, approving the Information, and filing it before the Sandiganbayan.

It described the unexplained delay of more than two years in approving the Information as alarming, and said the Ombudsman had utterly failed to provide a reasonable or sufficient justification for the delay that attended the preliminary investigation.

The majority cited the 2024 Supreme Court case of People v. Moreno, reported at 955 Phil. 231, where the high court found the delay of nine months and four days between the Ombudsman’s resolution and the actual filing of the case as unjustified.

“The transition period between the retirement of former Ombudsman Carpio-Morales and the assumption of former Ombudsman Martires cannot be used as a justification for the delay in the filing of the Information as it was former Ombudsman Martires who signed the Information. Thus, despite the 7-day difference of the delay in this case and that of Moreno’s, the ruling of [People v.] Moreno will squarely apply,” the Sandiganbayan’s resolution read.

The court also ruled that Mabilog timely asserted his right to speedy disposition of cases by filing his motion to quash before his arraignment.

It further found that the prosecution failed to establish that Mabilog suffered no prejudice from the delay.

Mabilog’s claim that the delay resulted in the deterioration or loss of evidence, impairing his defense, was left uncontroverted, according to the court.

“In view of the foregoing, it is indubitable that Mabilog’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated. As the Office of the Ombudsman has failed to discharge its burden of justifying the delay, the only appropriate and lawful remedy is the immediate and permanent dismissal of the present case against Mabilog,” the court said.

The court, however, rejected Mabilog’s other argument, that the Information should be quashed because the evidence on record did not support the allegations.

It said a motion to quash generally tests the sufficiency of the Information on its face and is not the proper proceeding for determining whether the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient to prove the accused’s guilt.

“It must be underscored that in filing a motion to quash, the accused merely assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information. Hence, it is improper for Mabilog to challenge the sufficiency of the allegations in the Information by resorting to the evidence on record,” the court stated.

Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan also recalled and set aside the hold departure order issued against Mabilog and ordered the release of his bail bond, subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures.

The court, however, declined to rule on Nava, whose case was submitted for decision under an order dated May 28, 2024.

“While the court acknowledges that the quashal of the Information as against accused Mabilog may potentially bear upon accused Nava, whose case has already been submitted for decision, the court shall refrain from making a definitive ruling on this matter,” the court said in the resolution’s last paragraph.

“In the interest of due process and orderly procedure, the court shall await the proper motion that accused Nava may file, as well as the comment or opposition thereto by the prosecution, before determining the effect of this resolution on his case,” it added.

The case stemmed from allegations involving 3L Towering Services, which was awarded a memorandum of agreement with the Iloilo City government to undertake the clamping and towing of illegally parked vehicles.

The Information filed by the Ombudsman against Mabilog alleged a direct financial or pecuniary interest in 3L Towering Services, including contributing PHP 500,000 as its initial capital and appointing Leny B. Garcia as its supposed dummy owner.

It also alleged that he issued the firm its business and mayor’s permits although Garcia never applied for them, and that the agreement was awarded without a competitive process.

The Information further alleged that he intervened in his official capacity by instructing Nava to make arrangements to favor the towing company, including drafting the memorandum of agreement, securing another lawyer to review the draft, requesting authority from the Sangguniang Panlungsod to sign the agreement, and eventually signing it.

The court ruled that these allegations, if hypothetically admitted as true, sufficiently established the elements of the offense charged under Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019.

Mabilog left the country in 2017 after then-President Rodrigo Duterte repeatedly linked him to the illegal drug trade, an accusation he has consistently denied. He returned in September 2024 and surrendered to the National Bureau of Investigation.

In a separate administrative case, the Ombudsman dismissed him from service in 2017 over unexplained wealth amounting to PHP 8.9 million. Marcos granted him clemency on that case in January 2025.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

Moreno and Miguel, who voted against granting Mabilog’s motion to quash, wrote opinions to explain their votes.

In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Moreno concurred that the Information sufficiently alleged the offense charged.

But he dissented against the argument of delay, stating that the prosecution had provided sufficient justification for the delays, citing the Ombudsman’s review process, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the transition in leadership at the agency.

He also said Mabilog failed to show that he had asserted his right to speedy disposition during the relevant period, noting that the former mayor invoked the right only on Oct. 10, 2024.

This was approximately seven years after filing his motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman, and more than a year after the Information had been filed before the Sandiganbayan.

Miguel, meanwhile, said the length of the proceedings before the Ombudsman alone did not resolve whether Mabilog’s constitutional right had been violated, noting that the determination must consider all the surrounding circumstances.

He cited the prosecution’s explanations involving the Ombudsman’s review process, the transfer of records between its Visayas and central offices, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the transition in leadership.

Miguel said Mabilog raised the issue of inordinate delay only after the Information had already been filed before the Sandiganbayan.

“Considering these circumstances together, I am not persuaded that the delay warrants the dismissal of the Information,” Miguel wrote.