Here, the Court is mindful of the length of time that it took the Sandiganbayan to dispose of the criminal cases. But records also show that petitioners were not blameless for the protracted proceedings. The Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan on June 5, 2005, and as a matter of course, arraignment, pre-trial, and trial ensued. Petitioners completed their presentation of evidence on July 3, 2008, and were then given 30 days to file its written formal offer of exhibits, while the prosecution was given 20 days from receipt of the defense's formal offer to file its comment/objection, and thereafter, the case will be deemed submittted for resolution.[45] However, instead of filing their formal offer of evidence, petitioners filed a Motion for Transfer of Markings[46] on August 9, 2008, requesting for Exhibits "7",[47] "8",[48] and "11"[49] to be formally marked since these documents were only provisionally marked during trial for being mere photocopies. On August 14, 2008, petitioners also filed a Supplemental Motion (to the Motion for Transfer of Markings), asking for an additional 15 days to file their formal offer of evidence after the marking. Admittedly, more than five years have elapsed before the Sandiganbayan acted on the motions. In a Resolution[50] dated June 13, 2014, the Sandiganbayan allowed the marking for Exhibit"8", but Exhibits "7" and "11" were disallowed because the new copies submitted remained unverifiable. The witness who testified on the denied exhibits was, nevertheless, allowed to be recalled. The defense, thus, recalled Ajijon to the witness stand on June 30, 2014. The Sandiganbayan then issued an Order[51] on even date, directing the defense to file its written formal offer of exhibits within 20 days, and the prosecution 20 days from receipt of the defense's formal offer to file its comment/objection. Petitioners complied and filed their Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits[52] on July 15, 2014. On December 16, 2016, or two years later, the Sandiganbayan acted upon the formal offer of evidence, and directed the parties to submit their memoranda within 10 days from notice.[53] Notably, petitioners still asked for additional time to submit their formal offer of evidence, which was granted. On January 16, 2017, petitioners finally filed their Memorandum.[54] On the other hand, the prosecution also moved for extension[55] to file its Memorandum,[56] which it filed on March 7, 2017. On August 2, 2017, the Sandiganbayan rendered the assailed Decision.

Undeniably, petitioners contributed to the delay in the proceedings in more ways than the prosecution and the Sandiganbayan did. In as early as July 2008, the case was ready to be submitted for resolution upon petitioners' compliance with the formal offer of evidence. But petitioners were not ready to file their formal offer of evidence, and instead, they moved for the formal marking of documents that they presented during trial in mere photocopies. Clearly, the proximal cause of the delay was petitioners' failure to present and submit competent copies of their evidence. Petitioners then had the opportunity to complete their evidence, but still, they were not able to fully submit the evidence they wanted to present as the documents they submitted remained unverifiable. What is more, despite the fact that the Sandiganbayan's action on the motions were concededly late for years, the defense still asked for additional time to comply with those delayed orders. The sense of urgency that petitioners advocate before this Court is evidently wanting in the proceedings below.

Inasmuch as the delay is mainly attributable to the defense's actions, we have basis to conclude that such delay did not cause significant prejudice to petitioners' cause to warrant the outright dismissal of the cases. Prejudice, in reference to the violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases or speedy trial, is assessed based on the interest of the accused sought to be protected by such rights, i.e., to prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration, minimize anxiety and concern of the accused, and limit the possibility that their defense will be impaired.[57]

end of part 2