I soon sorted myself out with a couple of paracetamol washed down with a gargantuan drink of water, and a plate of bacon, sausage, fried egg, mushrooms and black pudding at breakfast.
Afterwards we wandered around the topmost deck, watching the birds diving for flying fish. We saw the surface of the sea come alive with a massive shoal of the fish, while the birds swooped and dived and, more often than not, successfully caught their prey. The sun was very hot on my back and it wasn't long before I sought the coolness of the shade.
At quarter past two we went up to the Crow's Nest for the final round of the "Battle of the Sexes". We had an extra couple join in this time, so the ladies had five and the men four on their teams. The first round was "identify the celebrity" and the second round was "what's the phrase?" based on those Dingbat type puzzles. For some reason the answers to those just popped into my head instantly, so the ladies knocked spots off the men in this round.
We sat around a bit, watching a Wii bowling competition and enjoying our wine, before going and getting sorted out. As it was a sea day, then tonight was formal night once again.
We sat out on the balcony for a while, then got ourselves titivated up and dressed in our gladrags; I wore a long burgundy dress with sequins on the bodice, and a matching sequinned jacket, teamed with a gorgeous and unusual Murano necklace.
The show tonight was a new guy we hadn't seen before; he must have just joined the ship in St. Kitts. He was called Mike Sterling and had performed in the Phantom of the Opera and Les Misérables in London's West End. We was a decent singer and we enjoyed his show, especially when he did The Music of the Night.
As we were last night's winners, we started the quiz on -1 points, which is the winners' handicap. We didn't win tonight, only managing to come third, but we weren't complaining; we enjoyed the quiz anyway.
I was pretty tired by now, so we went back to our cabin where I read a while, before falling asleep, lulled by the sound of the waves. Tomorrow we were due to reach Port of France, Martinique.
We were up early once again this morning and out onto the balcony for a look round. Today we were docked in the port of Basseterre, capital of St. Kitts & Nevis. We'd been here once before, in 2012; we therefore decided, like yesterday, to pass the time at our own pace instead of going on an organised excursion. Moored next to us in the dock and blocking the view was the massive Royal Princess that we'd seen in Antigua.
We spent some time reading the leaflet about St. Kitts and studying a map of the island. We thought we might walk to the railway station (which was only 1.5km away) and see if we could go on the St. Kitts scenic railway; P&O had offered an organised trip to do this, but it was expensive at £64.00 each, so we thought if we went ourselves it would work out cheaper.
At the entrance to the cruise terminal Trevor asked the guy on duty how much the train ride was, but the guy said that it only accepted pre-booked tickets from the cruise passengers, and you couldn't just buy a ticket for the train. Trevor was sceptical about this however, and decided to go and give it a try anyway.
We set off along the hot and dusty streets in the general direction of the railway station. Although it was less than a mile and would normally only take us about 17 minutes, the shimmering heat made it hard going. Despite the map we found that a lot of the streets didn't have prominent street names, and we soon left behind the shops and restaurants and found ourselves in the middle of an estate of ramshackle houses, the train station nowhere in sight.
It was hot, sticky and not particularly pleasant walking through the grubby streets with nowhere to shelter from the sun, and I soon got fed up and wanted to abandon the search the for the train station, especially when there was no guarantee we'd even get on the train. We therefore decided to head for the sea and perhaps look for a nice beach, or see if we could get the water taxi over to the neighbouring island of Nevis.
We then decided to seek the shade and have a cold beer (!!) each, so we found a nearby local snackbar which sold Carib beer, three bottles for five dollars, and we bought some. A small monkey was tethered up in the bar and there was a box where you could make a donation if you wanted to have your photo taken with the monkey.
We strolled around and browsed the shops, then spotted a sign at the casino offering Carib beer at a dollar a bottle – it was obviously designed to tempt people into the casino but we were more attracted by the free wi-fi. We sat at a long table outside and ordered a beer each, checked emails etc. then got talking to another couple who joined us; they were passengers from the Royal Princess and hailed from Ontario, Canada.
We passed a pleasant hour or so in conversation with the couple, enjoying another beer each, before deciding to go back to the Adonia and enjoy a cool, refreshing swim once again. We then ate a light lunch, and went back to our cabin to enjoy a siesta.
Once the Royal Princess had departed, two things struck us at once. One was how quiet it now seemed, the other was how much brighter our cabin was, now that the sunlight wasn't being blocked out!
After we'd eaten we decided we'd go to the early show; you always finish your meal much quicker when it's self-service than you do when it's a formal meal in the dining room. So we were done by 7:00pm and were able to go into the Curzon lounge for the first performance at 7:15.
Tonight's show was called Night of a Thousand Stars and featured the Adonia Theatre Company doing their tribute to the many, many artistes who have performed at the London Palladium over the decades. It was a decent show but there are only five performers; three dancers and two singers, so it wasn't as glitzy as some shows we've seen on other ships.
We woke up this morning docked in the port of Road Town, capital of Tortola in the British Virgin Islands. We had been here twice before; on the Arcadia in 2005 and the Ventura in 2012, so we didn't have any excursion booked today, just deciding to do our own thing.
Afterwards we gathered together hat, sunglasses, sunscreen etc. and disembarked the Adonia for a slow walk into town. It was not yet 11 o'clock but the tropical sunshine was already very hot indeed. We haven't seen a drop of rain so far this cruise, and in fact the Caribbean sea has been very calm; most of the time you wouldn't even know you were on a ship, as the Adonia's motion has been barely discernible.
Tortola has changed a lot since we were last here, four years ago. We were somewhat perturbed to see that there have been a lot of new, swanky buildings and a shopping precinct built, and there was further evidence of an even greater expansion to the cruise terminal. To me, they are spoiling Tortola; we liked it better when it was a fairly undeveloped port, with little shops, boutiques and refreshment shacks and little cafés and bars, and chickens pecking desultorily at the roadsides. They are going to turn Tortola into an Americanised, commercialised, gilt-edged tacky place like Nassau or Cozumel, with your rip-off merchants and casinos and the ubiquitous Diamonds International. What a shame that some of the lovely Caribbean islands are losing their uniqueness in the name of money-making.
We didn't really do much; we just looked round the shops and wandered around, then found a stall selling souvenirs and postcards and got a couple to send home. Then, of course, we had to find somewhere to sit and write them out, which would also offer a respite from the sun. We spotted an English-style pub called "Pussers" and went gratefully into its cool, dim interior.
The pub was doing a lively trade. It was filled with nautical memorabilia, reminding us of Tortola's Royal Naval history and heritage. There were lots of old photos and ship's wheels, lamps, ropes and life-belts and other maritime mementos.
Back on the Adonia we changed and made our way up to the Crystal Pool deck, where few people were around, so we had the pool all to ourselves. Kicking off our shoes, we had to move fast to get into the water as the deck was too hot under our bare feet. It was gorgeous and refreshing in the water, and we swam lazily around for 20 minutes or so, before getting out, drying off and enjoying a light al fresco lunch in the shade.
We didn't really do much after that. We just relaxed on our balcony and I did some kumihimo braiding and read my Kindle, and just generally whiled away the time in its usual pleasant way until it was time to start getting ready for dinner.
The show in the Curzon lounge featured another show from Lion King singer Phillip Browne; once again his performance was excellent. We then went up to the Crow's Nest where there was a performance by classical guitarist Robin Hill which was a pleasant and relaxing interlude.
Then, as ever, we finished off by participating in the syndicate quiz but once again our hat-trick of wins eluded us.
Then it was back to cabin A006 to settle down for the night, and once again we slept soundly.
We were up early again this morning and after breakfast, as we were wandering around the deck taking in our surroundings, we met Colin, who asked us if we were going out to the airport. As we had nothing organised for today, we impulsively decided that it sounded like a good idea. We agreed to meet in Reception at 10:30am.
This is our third visit to St. Maarten, a nation under two flags – half Dutch and half French. It has the most gorgeous beaches, blue ponds and green hills and each side maintains its parent country's tradition and culture. There is so much to see and do in St. Maarten.
We spent the time going up to the topmost deck and looking to see which other ships were in port. We spotted the Jewel of the Seas which we'd seen in Antigua and saw another RCI giant coming into port, the massive Anthem of the Seas. It towered over everything and we noticed it had eight balcony decks alone, compared to the Adonia's three.
Just before half-past ten we made our way to reception where Colin and Christine were already waiting. We were presently joined by Bob and Thelma from our table, as well as another couple who introduced themselves as Ken and Sue. We decided we'd shared a mini-bus to Maho Beach.
We disembarked the Adonia and made our way dockside to the taxi ranks, which were doing a lively trade. We explained there were eight of us so we were taken to an air-conditioned mini-bus, where the female driver, Sonia, told us it would be $8.00 each person, each way.
We all piled into the mini-bus and set off through the busy streets thronging with traffic, looking with interest at the colourful buildings and the bustling, Friday morning activity. It took about an hour to get to Maho Beach, and specifically the Sunset Bar & Grill, situated right on the beach at the end of the International Airport runway.
Yes, you read that correctly; the beach bar was set at the end of the runway. Maho Beach is actually very well-known the world over for its unique location, and already, even though it was only 11:30am, the bar was doing a roaring trade and the beach was crowded with people of all nationalities, but mainly passengers from the cruise ships that were in.
We kicked off our shoes and walked along the shoreline, allowing the warm Caribbean sea to lap at our ankles. The sand was almost white and was powder soft. As we walked along the beach we found ourselves directly at the end of the fenced-off runway, immediately under the flight path of the aircraft. Large signs were in evidence advising against the dangers of jet blast; apparently it was not unknown for brave (or stupid) people to stand right behind the jumbo jets as they were taking off, allowing themselves to be blasted over the road, across the beach and into the sea; that's if they didn't do themselves severe damage (or worse) in the process.
We watched as one or two small aircraft came in, just 50 feet or so above the beach, then we decided to find a shady spot and enjoy some freezing cold beer.
The Sunset Bar offered a "bucket of beer", buy five bottles of Corona and get the sixth free, so we decided to go for that. The bottles were placed into the ice-filled bucket and we enjoyed one each while people-watching, plane-watching and just soaking up the happy, laid-back atmosphere.
Just before midday we spotted an aeroplane in the distance, getting ready to turn for his final approach, It looked as though it was fairly big, so we decided to walk out onto the beach a bit, directly under the flight path, Trevor with his camera at the ready and me carrying the bucket of beer. All around us we could see people getting their cameras, cam-corders, selfie sticks etc. ready and placing themselves in a good vantage point.
We watched a few more planes come in; one was an American Airlines jet and we got talking to a couple of people next to us who were passengers on the Anthem. We passed a pleasant interlude with them and then, because the very hot sun was beating down on us and we had no sun protection with us (!) we made our excuses and fled to the shelter of the bar, where we finished the rest of our beer.
We then met up with Colin and Chris and the rest of the gang and I went into the souvenir shop and bought a t-shirt (yes, you have to buy the t-shirt!) before we made our way back to the mini-bus for the return journey to the Adonia, arriving back about 2:15pm. We then went for something to eat before heading back to cabin A006 for a hot-sun-and-beer induced afternoon nap.
Just before 5:00pm we went out on our balcony and watched the departure of the Anthem of the Seas before getting showered, shampooed and ready for dinner. In the restaurant we all discussed the day's events, sights and sounds over the usual delicious meal.
The show tonight featured an excellent comedy magician called MarkShortland. We had seen him before on the Balmoral four years ago. He really is very entertaining and we thoroughly enjoyed his show. Afterwards, as ever, it was a case of a relaxing drink in the Crow's Nest before making our way to the Conservatory for the syndicate quiz with John and Linda. We enjoyed our winnings from last night, a nice chilled bottle of white wine. But no bottle of wine for us tonight – we didn't win. Oh well, there's always another night.
This morning we woke up in St. John's, the capital of Antigua. We had been here once before, in 2005 on the Arcadia, so today we were not going on an organised tour, but were rather doing our own thing.
When we looked out on our balcony, all we could see was what appeared to be a block of flats over-shadowing us, but it turned out we were docked alongside one of the mammoth American cruise ships; this one was the Royal Princess. The Adonia looked like a little pup moored up next to her!
Another two giant cruise ships were docked nearby as well; the Costa Favelosa and the Jewel of the Seas. We could therefore expect Antigua to be very crowded today, with over 10,000 cruise passengers alone invading St. John's. For me, it spoilt it a bit, it made the island very commercialised, and indeed the Heritage Quay, directly in front of the cruise terminal, thronged with visitors walking through the slightly tacky souvenir shops and places like 'Diamonds International' just looking to over-charge the unsuspecting holiday-maker.
After breakfast we disembarked the Adonia and decided to escape the crowds a little bit. We walked through the noisy terminal, over which could be heard the inevitable sounds of Caribbean steel drums, and made our way through the streets of shops, travel agents, offices and bars. The sun was already very hot. We didn't have any particular place to go and we refused numerous offers of "Taxi?" as we walked along.
We decided first of all to visit the cathedral of St. John, set in a picturesque position surrounded by mahogany trees and a small churchyard. The cathedral was rebuilt in 1845 to replace an earlier wooden building that was destroyed in an earthquake in 1843. The interior was designed to encase the congregation in pitch pine (in an attempt to secure the building from ruin during earthquake or hurricane) and is now undergoing a huge renovation project. Although there were signs up saying it was a construction site and therefore a hard hat area, nobody was stopped from going in and having a (limited) look around, where we were invited to make a donation to assist in the restoration.
The church was at the top of a gradual rise, and it afforded us good views of the cruise ships (and other vessels) in the harbour.
Continuing on our way we came to an interesting-looking, imposing building which had several vintage steam locomotives outside. They were mainly trains that were used to travel to, from and on the sugar plantations. We wondered if it was a railway museum as there was a placard outside saying that Antigua has more railway lines per square mile than anywhere else in the world. However, the building was the former courthouse built during the British colonial times of 1750, which since 1985 has been the Museum on Antigua & Barbuda. It only cost $3.00 per person admission, so we decided to go inside and take a look.
It was very interesting in the museum. Exhibits and displays took the visitor back in time through Antigua's history, from its beginnings over 35 million years ago to the times of the Arawak Indians, the slavery era to the present day. People always associate Antigua with the Royal Navy, Horatio Nelson, pirates, shipwrecks and, of course, rum, and the island is steeped in a rich maritime history. There are also quite a number of shipwrecks off the coasts of both Antigua and Barbuda, and these are popular with divers.
We spent an enjoyable hour in the museum, then took a slow stroll in the hot sun back to the Heritage Quay search for a bar and enjoy a cold beer. We found an open-air place selling the local Wadadli beer; it was noisy and crowded and full of Americans from the ships. The beer was cold, foamy and refreshing but we only stayed for one, preferring instead to go back to the relative peace and quiet of the Adonia.
Back on the ship we enjoyed an afternoon nap, before spending the rest of the time pottering around and sitting on our balcony, looking across with interest at the people sitting on their balconies in the Royal Princess. An American couple opposite us shouted across to ask us where we had boarded; we replied that it was Barbados. They had joined their cruise in Fort Lauderdale. It seemed strange to be carrying on a conversation from one ship to the next!
At about 5:00pm the Royal Princess gave a resounding blast of her foghorn to signify her imminent departure. It wasn't the regular three blasts, however; it played the notes of some unrecognisable tune. How tacky! It seems to me that the American ships want to try to give the passengers (or rather, "guests" as they call them) as little a nautical experience as possible, which somewhat defeats the object of cruising. The day all cruise ships are built like these giant floating apartment blocks is the day Trevor and I will stop cruising.
We watched as the Royal Princess slowly manoevred herself out of her berth, and put to sea. She was followed shortly afterwards by the Costa Favelosa. As it was now about 5:45pm we needed to start getting ready for dinner, so we reluctantly went inside.
As ever, we enjoyed a delicious meal, entertained by Colin's patter and jokes. Our next port of call is St. Maarten, and as an aviation expert he asked us whether we'd ever taken a ride out to the airport in Phillipsburg (the capital). We shook our heads and he explained that it was a sight to behold, as the aircraft come in right over the beach. He said he would organise a mini-bus if anyone on our table was interested.
The show in the Curzon lounge tonight featured the Adonia Theatre Company and was called "Songs from 88 Notes", after the 88 notes on a piano. We'd actually seen the same show three years ago when we were on this ship. It was enjoyable enough, but although the theatre company are good, I don't think they are as good as others we've seen; on our last cruise on the Boudicca for example, the overall entertainment was much better. Still, it's not costing anything and it passes a pleasant interlude.
Afterwards we went up on deck where the Amethyst Duo were "singing" some 60s and 70s music for the themed deck party. There weren't many people up there, whether because there was a brisk sea breeze or because of the dire singing, but I enjoyed a glass of prosecco (Yes! They actually have some in!), did some of this blog, and then it was time to try our hand once again at the syndicate quiz with John and Linda. So far we'd only had one win, so we were due another one.
So ended a pleasant and interesting day, and we turned in, after first of all opening our balcony door to let in the soothing sounds of the sea.
We were up early again this morning, in time to see the Adonia dock in Point-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe. Gaudeloupe is one of the French overseas départements and it looked quite a well-developed port, from what we could see from our vantage point on after breakfast on Deck 9. The currency here is the Euro.
We disembarked the ship to meet with the rest of the tour group. This morning we were booked on the "Guadeloupe Highlights" tour which would give us a good overview of the island.
We walked through the cruise terminal buildings, passing many colourful stalls selling clothing, souvenirs, drinks, bric-à-brac, spices and everything else you could think of. We thought the prices were a little dearer than elsewhere in the Caribbean. We would need to find an ATM as we didn't have any Euros with us, only US dollars. But that could wait until after the tour.
We boarded the bus and the guide introduced herself as Natalie, with Gilbert as our driver. We set off through the charming little streets, each with very individual private dwellings, many with French cars (Peugeot, Citroën and Renault) parked outside them. It looked as if it was a place where I could live quite easily. Many of the houses were semi-concealed behind lush herbiage, and a lot of them featured their own swimming pools.
Our first stop was at a waterfall, the Cascades aux Ecrevisses. We made our way down a series of stone steps, following the roaring sound of the water. The steps were quite uneven and you had to watch where you were putting your feet. The waterfalls cascaded into a lovely natural pool, which was obviously deep judging by the people swimming in it. I wished we'd brought our swimsuits and that we had more time, because it looked absolutely idyllic. Trevor clambered over some rocks to get a good enough view for a photograph, but I prudently stayed where I was, as I didn't fancy slipping. Natalie told us that the waterfall was one of numerous ones to be found around the island.
Next we stopped at the botanical gardens, and alighted from the bus into the hot sunshine. As we walked through the lush, tropical gardens with their colourful flowers and plentiful greenery, we kept in the shade of the trees where possible. Many exotic birds flew around, including hummingbirds, which looked particularly striking with their black and bright blue/turquoise plumage. They flitted from flower to tree to flower again, their little beating wings creating a blur. The wings of hummingbirds flap at approximately 50 times a second, meaning that they can hover like bumblebees and even fly backwards. I managed to get a good photo of a hummingbird perched on a vivid pink flower.
It was lovely in the botanical gardens, sampling a small example of what Mother Nature had to offer. We looked at many different trees (some with breadfruit, nutmeg, coffee and cocoa) as well as herbs and other medicinal plants, and of course lots of exotic blooms, insects and birds.
After about 45 minutes it was time to go along to the small concession area, where we had a voucher to collect a cool glass of guava juice, as well as the chance to use the restrooms if we needed to. We sat in the shade and enjoyed our juice, and watched as a little bird flew down and dipped his long beak into one of the beakers of juice on the bar.
We arrived at the Longueteau distillery and alighted from the bus, where a short walk took us to the cane processing plant. Where once the sugarcane was cut by hand, using hundreds of workers wielding machetes to cut down the tough stalks, nowadays the cane is all cut by machine, and each cane is chopped into lengths of about 6" which makes it easier to put into the machines which press the cane to extract the juice.
We saw the long conveyor belts carrying the sticks of cane to the chopping and pressing machines, and also a couple of very large vats in which the sugar cane juice was bubbling and fermenting away in its quest to make rum. Afterwards we were shown the barrels (the most popular size of which was the hogshead) in which the rum was stored to mature. Some of the barrels had previously held sherry or port, and this served to impart a delicate flavour to the maturing spirit.
There ended our tour and it was now time to return to the Adonia in time for lunch.
Back on board we enjoyed a light lunch before venturing ashore once again, to do our own thing. We found an ATM and withdrew some Euros, then we walked along the very busy and very hot streets – a nearby temperature readout showed that it was 32ºC, and it certainly felt like it. There were lots of shops, mainly selling clothing, shoes and household linens such as curtains, sheets and towels.
Back on board I took a refreshing shower and did my hair, then just spent the time pottering about until it was time to go to dinner. Tonight, however, we didn't go to the restaurant, but instead to the Conservatory, where they were serving a Thai Buffet. We enjoyed a selection of spicy and delicately-flavoured foods (including ginger-spiced prawns, which were delicious) all washed down with cold Tiger beer.
Then it was along to the Curzon lounge for tonight's show, a West End singer called Phillip Browne. This former London bus driver has starred in The Lion King, Porgy and Bess, Show Boat and several other productions. He was a great singer, a deep bass-baritone with a voice like melted chocolate – smooth and mellow. I would probably say that his show was the best we've seen so far on this cruise, and we looked forward to seeing a further performance from him.
Afterwards, as ever, we took part in the syndicate quiz with John and Linda, but we didn't win this time. Mind you, we didn't come last either, so it wasn't too bad.
We finished off the evening with a couple of drinks up in the Crow's Nest before heading back to cabin A006 and settling down for a good night's sleep.
We were up at 07:30 this morning and went out on the balcony to see what the weather was like. Although it was already warm and sunny, there was a brisk breeze blowing as the Adonia cut her way through the waves, leaving a foaming white wake behind her.
We put on our swimsuits, grabbed our pool towels and made our way up to Deck 9. Not many people were around this time of the morning, but the wind was stronger here so rather than go for a swim, I decided to spend some time in the hot tub.
I spent the maximum time allowed of 15 minutes in the jacuzzi which was enough to wake me up and invigorate me somewhat. Then we went back to the cabin to get dried and changed, and go for breakfast.
As we were going back to the cabin, one of the salon staff handed me a leaflet advertising a special offer; choose any five mini-treatments for £69.00. I decided that would be a perfect way to spend an hour, so I went along and made an appointment for 1.00pm, choosing a neck and shoulder massage, a mini-facial, eye treatment, scalp massage and deep conditioning treatment for my hair.
We spent the morning just pottering around the ship, until it was time to go to another of Colin Hobbs' aviation presentations at 11:00am. This time the topic covered supersonic travel and the inimitable Concorde. It was very interesting, made more so by the fact that Trevor and I have been privileged enough to have flown on Concorde twice. As far as I, and many other people are concerned, she should still be flying.
The end of the presentation took us nicely to lunch time, and I enjoyed a light meal of cold meats and salad. Then it was time for me to go along to the spa for my hour of pure relaxation.
In the salon, I changed into a white waffle bathrobe, and was shown to a large reclining chair by the window, with a floor to ceiling window giving an excellent sea view. The therapist started off by giving me a soothing scalp massage, followed by a facial and eye mask. Then she put the hair conditioning treatment on and, while it was doing its thing, she gave me a neck and shoulder massage. She had fingers of steel and I had to ask her to ease off before I started to feel like tenderised steak! My skin did feel lovely and smooth after the facial though.
When I came out of the spa, it was time to go along to the Crow's Nest for the second session of "Battle of the Sexes". In the first round there were 10 close-up photos of everyday objects and you had to say what they were; they consisted of everything from a stapler, clothes peg and umbrella. The second round consisted of photos of parts of celebrities' faces. If neither team got the answer correct, then a clue would be given but the total points were reduced from 20 to 10.
At the end of both rounds, the men were winning. Adding the scores to the totals scored last time mean that the men's team are now five points ahead of the ladies, so it's very close.
After the quiz it was time to go along and get showered, shampooed and sorted out as, once again, tonight was formal night. I wore a long black dress with a gorgeous fine mesh wrap in eau-de-nil, which was edged in red velvet and contained elaborate embroidered and sequinned patterns at the edge. I teamed it with a beaded necklace I'd made, with hand-made lampworked glass beads. The beads matched the wrap perfectly.
Dinner was delicious as ever, but we were of the increasing opinion that Bob on our table likes to find fault with everything. No matter what we were talking about, whether it was ships, cruises or ports of call, Bob would find something negative to say about it. It must be awful to have that sort of outlook on life; as readers of this blog will know, Trevor and I have travelled far and wide and stayed in hotels or been on ships ranging from excellent to mediocre, but on the whole we're fairly easily pleased – as long as our accommodation is clean and comfortable, we don't expect gilt edging (unless we've paid for it). People who complain all the time mustn't be happy people in their lives in general.
After our meal we went along to the Curzon lounge where tonight's entertainment consisted of the two classical acts we'd seen so far – the cellist Andrew Scrimshire and the Welsh soprano Gwawr Edwards. Both were very good, but I was starting to feel quite tired by now and knew I wouldn't be staying up too late tonight.
I was ready to go back to the cabin by then, and settle down with my Kindle before getting some shut-eye. Trevor, however, said he'd pop along to the Crow's Nest to see what was going on as they were supposed to be holding a British Pub Night.
I am currently reading The White House Farm Murders, a fascinating account of the 1985 case in which Jeremy Bamber was convicted of shooting down his entire family; mother, father, sister and her twin six-year-old boys. He has always maintained his innocence and controversy about the case still rages over 30 years later.
I'd been in bed half an hour or so before Trevor returned then, once we'd opened the balcony door to let in the fresh sea air, we settled down to sleep. Tomorrow we were due to dock in Guadeloupe, another new port of call for us.


Each bottle of Harmless Coconut water starts with our uniquely fragrant, organic coconuts grown in Thailand. Our proprietary extraction and filtration processes allow us to preserve the flavor of our precious product for you to enjoy. We never thermally pasteurize or add anything artificial to our product, which means you may get a pink bottle. We embrace the natural color change because pink or clear, they're both delicious! As a Fair for Life certified company, we are committed to an ecosystem based business model which allows us to share the welfare we create throughout the chain of custody. This allows us to provide fair wages to our employees and promote social, agricultural, and environmental progress throughout the lifespan of our products.


Everyone comments on the large paintings that adorn the walls of the Main Library building.
They were donated to the library in 1916 by the widow of the artist, Eliphalet Frazer Andrews (1835-1915).
Most are copies done for the Steubenville Centennial Celebration in 1897, painted from earlier works of the artist.
In 1982, the State Auditor of Ohio required that the paintings be reviewed for monetary value after finding a painting hanging on the wall of another Ohio Library was worth more than $ 1 million dollars.
Regardless, people delight at staring at the huge canvases that they think are different poses of George Washington, but are actually Baron von Steuben and George Rogers Clark.
When I arrived in 1983, the staff discussed the "other painting" in the collection, that was in storage and carefully wrapped up in protective paper.
It was the only portrait of a woman in the library; Mrs. James Collier, and was done about 1870 of the wife of Colonel James Collier who served in the War of 1812 and the Civil War.
Mrs. Collier was damaged in 1965 when vandals broke into the library (before the days of alarm systems and cameras) and upset that no money was found, they slashed that one painting, leaving it ripped and tattered.
Poor Mrs. Collier reposed in storage, waiting the day that some kind person could find a way of fixing her.
The review of the paintings included Mrs. Collier, and it was suggested that we contact the Allen Art Museum at Oberlin College for suggested restoration costs.
I did, and found that $ 14,000 would restore the painting, but that the restoration costs were well-beyond the actual value of the painting.
They suggested that the library donate the painting to the Allen Art Museum, and they could cut it up in squares for the students to practice restoration, after photographing it for historical purposes.
We reluctantly did that, and I delivered it to Oberlin, and provided additional information for the historical sketch.
Her name was actually Eunice Ingersoll Collier (1790-1889) and she lived to be nearly 100 years of age.
Two years passed, and I received a call from Oberlin. The restoration program decided not to cut up Mrs. Collier, and actually they had grown fond of her to the point they restored the whole painting intact.
For just the price of the materials, Eunice Ingersoll Collier could come home in one piece and again adorn the walls of the library.
I made the trip to Oberlin, and there was the class who had restored her, waiting to tell me all about the restoration.
They had fallen in love with Mrs. Collier. Her chin had to repainted and the form is a guess, since the slashes had destroyed that part of the painting.
She has a "Mona Lisa" smile now, which is hopefully correct.
The painting was originally in an oval frame. Two layers of old varnish were removed to expose the bright painting.
I returned her to the walls of the South Reading Room, a location she hadn't seen since the 1940s.
Maybe at night, she chatters with Baron von Steuben, James Ross, and Bezaleel Wells, the other portraits in the room.
Perhaps the men were glad to have Eunice back in the group.
I am just glad that she returned in one piece, ready for the next century of making people happy in the Reading Room of the library.


text:
Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips
2018 Bar Passers
Chief Justices
News and Advisories
The Supreme Court E-Library
The E-Library Development Team
Toggle posts
[REGISTER]
[(02)524-2706]
[E-LIBRARY HOTLINE]
Foreign Supreme Courts
View printer friendly version
[ G.R. Nos. 233557-67, June 19, 2019 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANBIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND CESAR ALSONG DIAZ, RESPONDENTS.
REYES, A., JR., J.:
The right of an accused to the speedy disposition of cases is a sacrosanct right that must not only be respected by courts and tribunals, but must also be invoked only in clear instances of vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. This sacred right is a shield, not a weapon to be used against the State, and should not preclude the rights of public justice.[1]
This treats of the Petition for Certiorari[2] filed by herein petitioner People of the Philippines, seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions dated April 18, 2017[3] and July 3, 2017,[4] both issued by the Sandiganbayan, granting the Motion to Quash and the Supplemental Motion to Quash the Information filed by private respondent Cesar Alsong Diaz (Diaz).
The Antecedents
On January 18, 2011, State Auditor III and Audit Team Leader Oscar C. Lerio (Lerio) of the Commission on Audit (COA), Municipality of Tagana-an, Surigao del Norte sent a Demand Letter to Diaz requiring him to liquidate and account for his cash advances amounting to P5,223,014.00.[5]
In compliance with the said demand, Diaz made a liquidation on January 18, 2011 and April 5, 2011 in the total amount of PI 10,987.00, thereby leaving a balance of P5,172,227.24.[6]
Meanwhile, on April 18, 2011 and September 2, 2011, Diaz incurred additional cash advances on the Intelligence Fund in the sum of P202,500.00. Again, he failed to liquidate the same amount within the prescribed period, prompting Lerio to send another Demand Letter dated June 9, 2011.[7] Thus, as of March 31, 2012, Diaz's cash advances amounted to P5,374,727.24.[8]
On August 6, 2012, Lerio filed an Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao (OMB-Mindanao), accusing Diaz of violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for failing to liquidate his cash advances amounting to P5,374,727.24.[9] Attached to Lerio's Affidavit were 76 different documents, checks, receipts and other papers.[10] The case was docketed for preliminary investigation as OMB-M-C-13-0003, entitled Oscar C. Lerio v. Cesar A. Diaz.[11]
On January 30, 2013, the OMB-Mindanao released the Order dated January 29, 2013, directing Diaz to submit his counter-affidavit.[12]
On March 5, 2013, Diaz filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Counter-Affidavit requesting for an extension of 10 days.[13]
On March 19, 2013, the OMB-Mindanao received Diaz's Counter-Affidavit, which included 10 Annexes consisting of Liquidation Reports, among others.[14] In his Counter-Affidavit, Diaz admitted obtaining the cash advances. However, he claimed that he submitted the liquidation reports for eight of his cash advances from the Intelligence Fund, amounting to P762,500.00.[15] Diaz further averred that he had liquidated all of his cash advances, but he incurred difficulties retrieving the said records from the Municipal Accountant's Office and the Municipal Treasurer's Office, considering that the records from January 2004 to September 2011 were no longer available in the said offices.[16]
Ruling of the Ombudsman
In a Resolution[17] dated February 7, 2014, the OMB found probable cause to indict Diaz for violation of Article 218 of the RPC. The OMB found that all the elements of Article 218 were present, considering that while Diaz was the Municipal Mayor of Tagana-an, Surigao del Norte, he received the public funds and failed to account for the same within the specified periods required by law.[18]
The dispositive portion of the OMB ruling reads:
WHEREFORE, this Office finds probable cause to indict respondent for thirteen counts of violation of Article 218 of the [RPC]. Let the corresponding Information be filed with the Sandiganbayan.
SO ORDERED.[19]
Diaz filed a Motion for Reconsideration[20] dated November 5, 2014. Thereafter, he filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration[21] dated November 25, 2014.
In an Order[22] dated December 8, 2014, the OMB denied Diaz's Motion for Reconsideration.
Later, on January 30, 2017, Diaz filed a "Motion to Quash the Information and/or Dismiss These Cases on Account of Gross Violation By the Office of the Ombudsman of Accused'[s] Right to Speedy Disposition of His Cases."[23]
On February 22, 2017, the OMB filed its Comment/Opposition[24] to the Motion to Quash filed by Diaz.
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
On April 18, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution,[25] granting Diaz's Motion to Quash. The Sandiganbayan found that there was an inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation against Diaz, which lasted for four (4) years, five (5) months, and ten (10) days.[26] The Sandiganbayan observed that there were lulls during the conduct of the preliminary investigation. Specifically, it took the OMB six (6) months and twenty-four (24) days to issue an Order directing Diaz to file his Counter-Affidavit;[27] one (1) year, six (6) months, and twenty-one (21) days (from the filing of Diaz's Counter Affidavit) to sign and approve the Resolutions recommending the filing of the Information against Diaz;[28] one (1) year and three (3) months to resolve Diaz's Motion for Reconsideration;[29] and eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days (from the denial of Diaz's Motion for Reconsideration) to file the Information. The Sandiganbayan found the reasons for the said delays to be unjustified.[30]
Moreover, the Sandiganbayan noted that Diaz asserted his right to the speedy disposition of his case at the earliest opportunity, by filing a Motion to Quash immediately after the Informations were filed against him.[31]
Finally, the Sandiganbayan opined that the prejudice suffered by Diaz is "obvious[,]"[32] as "[t]he cases against Diaz has [sic] been pending for a considerable period."[33] This prejudice was evident from the fact that Diaz suffered "dire circumstances consisting of difficulties in the preparation of his defense, owing the lapse of memories and probable dissipation of documentary evidence and witnesses."[34] In addition, Diaz was "unable to secure the necessary clearances from government agencies, and endured financial drain, restrained freedom of movement, public ridicule, embarrassment, anguish, sleepless nights, restless moments, and isolation from friends and other people."[35]
The decretal portion of the assailed Sandiganbayan ruling reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the violation of the constitutional right of accused Diaz to the speedy disposition of the cases against him, the instant cases are hereby DISMISSED.
The bond which the accused posted in the amount of Sixty-Six Thousand Pesos (Php 66,000.00) in Cash is hereby ordered released, subject to the liability of the bond, if there be any, as well as the usual accounting procedures.
The Hold Departure Order (HDO) dated January 20, 2017 is hereby recalled.
SO ORDERED.[36] (Emphases in the original)
Aggrieved, the OMB filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Sandiganbayan denied in its Resolution[37] dated July 3, 2017.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the OMB filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The main issue raised for the Court's consideration rests on whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting Diaz's Motion to Quash.
The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), decries the dismissal of the criminal cases filed against Diaz. The OSP claims that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when the latter arbitrarily rejected the fact that the period that lapsed in the preliminary investigation was necessitated by the demands of due process and was forced by the surrounding circumstances of the case. According to the OSP, the Sandiganbayan simply ventured into a mere mathematical computation of the period involved, and completely abandoned its task of conducting a balancing test. Instead, the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily set aside the doctrinal rule of considering the four-fold factors that should be assessed in determining whether there was in fact a violation of the right to speedy disposition.
Moreover, the OSP avers that Diaz did not assert his right to speedy disposition, and that he failed to show any overt acts proving that he is not abandoning his right to the speedy disposition of his case at any time during the actual preliminary investigation.
The OSP further contends that there was no conclusive factual evidence presented to substantiate Diaz's purported claim of prejudice that he suffered during the alleged delay in the preliminary investigation.
On the other hand, Diaz counters that the period during which the COA conducted its fact-finding investigation should be included in counting the period of the delay.[38] He avers that the delay in resolving the case was in no way justified, which resulted in a violation of his right to the speedy disposition of his case.[39]
Ruling of the Court
An Acquittal That Is Rendered with Grave Abuse of Discretion Amounting to Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction May Be Questioned Through a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
It must be noted at the outset that a judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy. However, in such case, the prosecution is burdened to establish that the court a quo, in this case, the Sandiganbayan, acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction or a denial of due process.[40] This doctrine was expounded in People v. Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, et al.,[41] where the Court, citing the case of People v. Hon. Asis, et al.,[42] further explained that:
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the remedy to question a verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate level. In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. The rule, however, is not without exception. In several cases, the Court has entertained petitions for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the accused in, or the dismissals of, criminal cases. x x x.[43] (Citations omitted)
Likewise, in Javier v. Gonzales,[44] the Court stressed that "[d]ouble jeopardy is not triggered when the order of acquittal is void."[45] "An acquittal rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction does not really 'acquit' and therefore does not terminate the case as there can be no double jeopardy based on a void indictment."[46] Simply stated, a decision rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction. In turn, this lack of jurisdiction prevents double jeopardy from attaching.[47]
Applying the foregoing pronouncements to the case at bar, the instant petition for certiorari is the correct remedy in seeking to annul the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
With this, the Court shall now proceed to determine whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal case filed against Diaz due to the Ombudsman's violation of his right to the speedy disposition of his case.
The Determination of Delay in the Proceedings Is Not Subject to a Mere Mathematical Reckoning
No less than the 1987 Constitution guarantees to all persons accused of crimes the right to a speedy disposition of their case. Article III, Section 16 in no uncertain terms mandates that "[a]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies."[48]
The term "speedy disposition" is a relative term and necessarily a flexible concept. Mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not suffice, as the realities of everyday life must be regarded in judicial proceedings which, after all, do not exist in a vacuum. As such, any alleged delay in the disposition of the case should be considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings.[49]
Accordingly, in determining whether the right has been violated, the following factors may be considered and balanced, namely, (i) the length of delay; (ii) the reasons for the delay; (iii) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (iv) the prejudice caused by the delay.[50]
Added to this, the Court, in the recent en bane case of Cesar Matas Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, Quezon City, Office of the Ombudsman, and People of the Philippines,[51] laid down the following guidelines in determining whether the delay in the disposition of the case constitutes a violation of the accused's right to speedy disposition of cases, to wit:
(i) The right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial;
(ii) A case shall deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint prior to the conduct of a preliminary investigation. The doctrine in People v. Sandiganbayan which states that the fact-finding investigation should not be deemed separate from the preliminary investigation for the purposes of determining whether there was a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases, has been abandoned.
Accordingly, the period taken for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of the formal complaint shall no longer be included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay.
Likewise, the OMB shall set reasonable periods for preliminary investigation, with due regard to the complexities and nuances of each case. Delays beyond the periods set by the OMB shall be taken against the prosecution;
(iii) Courts must first determine which party carries the burden of proof. If the case was resolved within the time periods contained in the law. Supreme Court resolutions, and circulars, then the burden falls on the defense to prove that the accused's right to speedy disposition was indeed violated. Specifically, the defense must show that the case is motivated by malice, or is politically motivated and attended by utter lack of evidence; and that it did not contribute to the delay.
Otherwise, if the case drags beyond the reasonable periods, and the accused invokes his right to speedy disposition, then the prosecution must justify the delay. The prosecution must prove that it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation and in the prosecution of the case; the issues in the case were complex, and that the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable; and that the accused did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the delay;
(iv) "Determination of the length of delay is never mechanical. Courts must consider the entire context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be weighed to the simplicity or complexity of the issues raised." This rule holds true unless it is shown that the prosecution of the case was solely motivated by malice, or if the accused himself/herself waived his/her right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial. In all cases of dismissals due to inordinate delay, the causes of the delays must be properly laid out and discussed by the relevant court; and
(v) The right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial must be timely raised. The respondent or the accused must file the appropriate motion upon the lapse of the statutory or procedural periods. Failure to do so, constitutes a waiver of such right.[52] (Citation omitted and emphases Ours)
Applying the foregoing tenets to the case at bar, the Court finds that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the quashal of the Information against Diaz based on the purported violation of his right to speedy disposition.
The Investigation Conducted by the OMB Proceeded at a Continuous and Steady Pace
Article XI, Section 12[53] of the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770, Section 13[54] underscore the need for the OMB to act promptly on all the complaints brought before his/her Office.[55] This duty, however, should not be performed at the expense of thoroughness and correctness.[56] It bears stressing that to administer justice with dispatch pertains to an orderly and expeditious process, and not mere speed.[57]
Likewise, "judicial notice should be taken of the fact that the nature of the Office of the Ombudsman encourages individuals who clamor for efficient government service to freely lodge their Complaints against wrongdoings of government personnel, thus resulting in a steady stream of cases reaching the Office of the Ombudsman."[58] Hence, "it cannot be definitely said how long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift, but deliberate. It is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures rights to the accused, but it does not preclude the rights of public justice."[59] For sure, the right to speedy trial cannot be invoked where to sustain the same would result in a clear denial of due process to the prosecution. This right should not operate to deprive the State of its inherent prerogative to prosecute criminal cases.[60]
In the case at bar, the Sandiganbayan concluded that the OMB was guilty of violating the right of Diaz to the speedy disposition of his case, due to the purported delay in its conduct of the preliminary investigation, which lasted for four (4) years, five (5) months, and ten (10) days.[61] Also, the Sandiganbayan held that the OMB took a particularly long time to perform the following acts: (i) six (6) months and twenty-four (24) days before directing Diaz to file his Counter-Affidavit;[62] (ii) one (1) year, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days before signing and approving the Resolutions recommending the filing of the Information against Diaz;[63] (iii) one (1) year and three (3) months before issuing the Resolution denying Diaz's Motion for Reconsideration;[64] and (iv) eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days before filing the Information with the Sandiganbayan.[65]
The Court disagrees.
It must be stressed that the determination of the length of delay is never mechanical.[66] Rather, the Court must consider the peculiar facts and circumstances surrounding the case. As the rule now stands, a case should not precipitately be dismissed simply because the case dragged beyond the reasonable periods. The prosecution must be given the chance to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that it followed the prescribed procedure in the prosecution of the case, the issues in the case were complex, the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable, and the accused did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the delay.[67] This, the prosecution sufficiently did.
The records show that the conduct of the preliminary investigation actually proceeded at a continuous and steady pace. Likewise, the OMB sufficiently explained the reasons behind the purported delay in the disposition of the case.
During the alleged lag of six (6) months and twenty-four (24) days from the filing of Lerio's Affidavit to the issuance of the Order directing Diaz to submit his Counter-Affidavit, the OMB's investigating prosecutor had to study the case and evaluate the charges. The OMB noted that Lerio's Affidavit was "undated, unverified, and did not charge any offense against Diaz."[68] Because of this, the investigating prosecutor had to scrutinize the attached 76 documents and make a determination on the proper course of action.[69]
Anent the one (1) year, six (6) months, and twenty-one (21) days of delay in the signing and approval of the Resolutions recommending the filing of the Informations against Diaz, the OMB explained that the said process had to undergo various triers of review within the Office of the OMB. Added to this, the proper dates of the commission of the offense sought to be charged were not readily ascertainable from Lerio's Affidavit or from any of the documents submitted by Diaz. According to the OMB, this was further complicated by the fact that during this time, they were already past the stage of clarificatory questioning.[70]
Likewise, following the filing of Lerio's Affidavit, the following incidents took place, the Deputy OMB-Mindanao submitted his Review Memorandum dated March 31, 2013 to the OMB, recommending the approval of the proposed Draft Resolution of GIPO Arenas and the proposed 13 Informations. The said Review Memorandum, Draft Resolution and the 13 Draft Informations were then endorsed to the OMB Quezon City through a letter dated June 25, 2014. Accordingly, the OMB signed and approved the correct Draft Resolution on October 10, 2014.[71]
It bears emphasis that the Resolution recommending the filing of criminal charges, passed from the hands of GIPO Arenas to the Deputy OMB-Mindanao, down to the OMB-Quezon City, back again to the Deputy OMB-Mindanao, and then to the OMB-Quezon City for finalization. These are the normal processes performed in the Office of the OMB. To the mind of the Court, this justifiably explains the delay of six (6) months and twenty-four (24) days for the issuance of the Order to file Counter-Affidavit, and the one (1) year, six (6) months, and twenty-one (21) days alleged delay from the filing of the Counter-Affidavit to the approval of the resolution of the case.
Added to this, voluminous records had to be carefully considered, and there were overlapping cash advances drawn over a period of seven (7) to eight (8) years. These records were scrutinized and analyzed against Diaz's defense that he had liquidated the said accounts.
As to the delays in the resolution of Diaz's Motion for Reconsideration, the following timeline belies the existence of inordinate delay:
On November 5, 2014, the OMB-Mindanao received Diaz's Motion for reconsideration, where he insisted that the cash advances from January 2004 to November 2005 were already liquidated and that the liquidation papers are with the COA. Around 20 days thereafter, Diaz filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on November 27, 2014. The same Motion was resolved by GIPO Arenas in less than a month, in an Order dated December 8, 2014. Then, following the protocol within the OMB, the said Order was submitted to Deputy OMB-Mindanao, who issued his Review Memorandum a month thereafter, or on January 9, 2015, recommending the approval of the proposed Order dated December 8, 2014 to the OMB.[72]
Consistent with the OMB's internal processes, the said Review Memorandum, along with the Order dated December 8, 2014 and the previously prepared Draft Informations, were transmitted by the OMB-Minctanao to the OMB in Quezon City in a letter dated January 16, 2014 for the letter's perusal and action. During this period, however, the OMB-Quezon City noted several details that necessitated corrections to the Draft Informations. Thus, the OMB-Quezon City caused the amendment of the draft Informations, pertaining to Diaz's cash advances incurred from 2004 to 2006, considering that during the said period, Diaz was the Vice Mayor, and not the Mayor of Tagana-an, Surigao del Norte. As such, the Informations should be filed before the RTC.[73]
Also, the OMB noted errors in the dates of the commission of the offense as written in the Draft Informations. The dates in the Draft Informations reflected the dates of the Disbursement Vouchers. It must be noted that the date of the commission of the offense for violation of Article 218 of the RPC should be that following the two (2)-month period after the due date for the liquidation of the cash advances. Thus, this led to the redrafting of the Informations.[74]
Further, the OMB was likewise saddled with the dilemma of adding additional respondents based on Diaz's statements in his Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration that he was allegedly allowed to incur subsequent cash advances even if his previous cash advances have not yet been liquidated or properly accounted for.[75]
Based on the foregoing, it becomes all too apparent that the alleged periods of delay considered by the Sandiganbayan were not actually "lulls" or periods of inactivity. Rather, during these periods, the OMB had to meticulously scrutinize the documents, review and study the case, make necessary corrections - all to ensure the proper resolution of the case. For sure, this cannot be characterized as an inordinate delay. At best, this shows that the OMB did not proceed with the case in a haphazard manner, but undertook a thorough scrutiny of the case, to ensure the existence of probable cause against Diaz.
It must be remembered that "courts should appraise a reasonable period from the point of view of how much time a competent and independent public officer would need in relation to the complexity of a given case."[76] Courts are called to consider the entire context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be weighed to the simplicity or complexity of the issues raised. This rule holds true unless it is shown that the prosecution of the case was solely motivated by malice, or if the accused himself/herself waived his/her right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial.[77]
Equally important, the purported delay was in no way vexatious, capricious, and/or oppressive. There is no showing that the prosecution was solely motivated by malice in the prosecution of the case. In handling the case, the OMB did not harass Diaz, or treat him in an unfair or oppressive manner. Neither was it shown that the case was politically motivated. In fact, Diaz never adverted to anything of this sort.
Diaz Failed to Show Any Prejudice Suffered from the Alleged Delay in the Prosecution of His Case
In determining whether the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of his/her case was violated, it is likewise essential for the accused to show that he/she suffered prejudice due to the delay. This "prejudice" is assessed in light of the interests of the accused which the speedy disposition right is designed to protect, such as: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.[78]
To begin with, the first criterion does not apply in the case at bar, as the respondent was never arrested or taken into custody, or otherwise deprived of his liberty in any manner. Thus, the only conceivable harm to Diaz are the anxiety brought by the investigation, and the potential prejudice to his ability to defend his case. Even then, the harm suffered by Diaz occasioned by the filing of the criminal cases against him is too minimal and insubstantial to tip the scales in his favor.
Suffice to say, not every claim of prejudice shall conveniently work in favor of the respondent. First, there must be a conclusive factual basis behind the purported claim of prejudice, as the Court cannot rely on pure speculation or guesswork. The respondent, who asserts to have suffered prejudice, must show actual, specific, and real injury to his rights.[79] Thus, a "mere reference to a general asseveration that their 'life, liberty and property, not to mention reputation' have been prejudiced is not enough."[80]
Diaz's claims that he "endured financial drain, restrained freedom of movement, public ridicule, embarrassment, anguish, sleepless nights, restless moments, and isolation from friends and other people,"[81] are vague assertions, and typical trepidations and problems attendant to every criminal prosecution. Concededly, anxiety typically accompanies a criminal charge. However, not every claim of anxiety affords the accused a ground to decry a violation of the rights to speedy disposition of cases and to speedy trial.[82] "The anxiety must be of such nature and degree that it becomes oppressive, unnecessary and notoriously disproportionate to the nature of the criminal charge."[83]
Likewise, the alleged public ridicule, embarrassment, anguish, sleepless nights, restless moments and isolation do not amount to that degree that would justify the nullification of the appropriate and regular steps that must be taken to assure that while the innocent should go unpunished, those guilty must expiate for their offense. They pale in importance to the gravity of the charges and the paramount considerations of seeking justice.[84]
Furthermore, a claim that the delay has caused an impairment to one's defense must be specific and not merely conjectural. "Vague assertions of faded memory will not suffice. Failure to claim that particular evidence had been lost or had disappeared defeats speedy trial claim."[85]
In the instant case, all that Diaz decried were general claims that he could no longer locate unnamed and unidentified witnesses and that he is having difficulty securing unspecified documents.[86] These shall not serve to deprive the State of its right to prosecute criminal offenses involving millions of pesos from the public coffers.
It must be remembered that in Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan,[87] the Court warned against purported claims of prejudice that are simply "conjectural and dubious invocations."[88] The claim of possible loss of evidence, or unavailability of witnesses, although prejudicial to the accused, must still be scrutinized, viz.:
We recognize the concern often invoked that undue delay in the disposition of cases may impair the ability of the accused to defend himself, the usual advertence being to the possible loss or unavailability of evidence for the accused. We do not apprehend that such a difficulty would arise here. x x x.
x x x x
Consequently, whatever apprehension petitioner may have over the availability of such documents for his defense is inevitably shared in equal measure by the prosecution for building its case against him. This case, parenthetically, is illustrative of the situation that what is beneficial speed or delay for one side could be harmful speed or delay for the other, and vice-versa. Accordingly, we are not convinced at this juncture that petitioner has been or shall be disadvantaged by the delay complained of or that such delay shall prove oppressive to him. The just albeit belated prosecution of a criminal offense by the State, which was enjoined by this very Court, should not be forestalled either by conjectural supplications of prejudice or by dubious invocations of constitutional rights.[89] (Citations omitted)
The Court is not unmindful of its ruling in Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, et al.[90] Commo. Torres (Ret.) v. Sandiganbayan, et al.,[91] and Inocentes v. People[92] where the Court affirmed the Motion to Quash the Information due to the violation of the accused's right to the speedy disposition of his case. In these cases, the argument that the accused was prejudiced because of the difficulty in securing witnesses and evidence swayed the Court.
However, in Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, the case dragged on for 15 years, in Torres for 18 years, and in Inocentes for 7 years. Added to this, the Court found in the cited cases that the delays were in fact unreasonable, oppressive, and vexatious, and that the reasons proffered behind the delay were unjustified.
It also bears noting that the records are bereft of any showing that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the OMB to delay the case in order to gain some tactical advantage over the accused.
The Assertion of the Right to Speedy Trial
It must be remembered that the invocation of one's right to speedy disposition of cases must be timely raised. The accused must file the appropriate motion upon the lapse of the statutory or procedural periods. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of such right.[93] Indeed, although the Sandiganbayan noted that Diaz raised this right immediately after the filing of the Information, there was no showing that he attempted to assert his right during the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
Although there may have been delay, Diaz has not shown that he asserted his rights during this period, choosing to wait until the Information was filed against him with the Sandiganbayan. In Cagang, this was considered against therein accused, who raised no objection before the OMB, where the inordinate delay was claimed to have occurred.
Indeed, Diaz, as the accused, has no obligation to bring himself to trial. However, his act of waiting for four (4) years while the preliminary investigation took place, passively accepting the delay without any objection, and then suddenly asserting his right to speedy disposition as soon as he received the OMB's adverse ruling, is certainly questionable.
In fine, the Courts are called to balance the duty of the State to effectively prosecute crimes alongside the Constitutional right of the accused to a speedy disposition of his/her case. Lest it be forgotten, "[a]s significant as the right of an accused to a speedy trial is the right of the State to prosecute people who violate its penal laws."[94] This means that the OMB is saddled with the task of meticulously and diligently assessing each case, while working against time. The OMB should not be faulted if the delay in the proceedings is only attributable to the ordinary processes of justice.[95] This is why it is imperative to do away with a mechanical mathematical reckoning of time, and to delve deeper into the circumstances of each particular case. Otherwise, the precipitate dismissal of a case may enable the accused, who may be guilty, to go scot-free without having been tried, thereby infringing the societal interest in trying people accused of crimes by granting them immunization simply because of a legal blunder.[96]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated April 18, 2017, and July 3, 2017, which granted respondent Cesar Alsong Diaz's Motion to Quash are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Sandiganbayan is forthwith DIRECTED to proceed with deliberate dispatch in the disposition of Criminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-0038 to 0048.
Leonen, (Acting Chairperson),* and Inting, JJ., concur.
Peralta, and Hernando, JJ., on official business.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on June 19, 2019 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on July 18, 2019 at 10:10 a.m.
(SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
* Designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2675 dated June 17, 2019.
[1] Olbes v. Hon. Judge Buemio, et al., 622 Phil. 357, 366 (2009).
[2] Rollo, pp. 6-56.
[3] Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg, with Associate Justices Efren N. Dela Cruz and Bernelito R. Fernandez concurring; id. at 58-71.
[4] Id. at 73-76.
[7] Id. at 121-122.
[9] Id. at 10.
[10] Id. at 10-16.
[11] Id. at 17.
[12] Id.
[15] Id. at 123.
[17] Rendered by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Janice Joanne T. Torres-Arenas; id. at 121-128.
[20] Id. at 129-137.
[24] Id. at 97-113.
[40] People v. Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, et al., 791 Phil. 37, 51-52 (2016), citing People v. Judge Laguio, Jr., 547 Phil. 296, 311 (2007); People v. Uy, 508 Phil. 637, 649 (2005).
[41] 791 Phil. 37 (2016).
[42] 643 Phil. 462 (2010).
[43] People v. Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, et al., supra note 40, at 52.
[46] Id. at 648, citing Villareal v. People, 680 Phil. 527 (2012).
[47] Javier v. Gonzales, id.
[48] 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 16.
[49] Sps. Uy v. Judge Adriano, 536 Phil. 475, 497 (2006).
[50] Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan, 412 Phil. 921, 929 (2001), citing Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, 292-A Phil. 144, 154-155 (1993); Dansal v. Judge Fernandez, Sr., 383 Phil. 897, 907 (2000); Blanco v. Sandiganbayan, 399 Phil. 674, 682 (2000).
[51] G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458 - G.R. Nos. 210141-42, July 31, 2018.
[53] Article XI, Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.
[54] Section 13. Mandate. — The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people.
[55] Dansal v. Judge Fernandez, Sr., supra note 50, at 908-909.
[57] Olbes v. Hon. Judge Buemio, et at, supra note 1, 366 (2009).
[59] Olbes v. Hon. Judge Buemio, et al., supra note 1.
[60] Sps. Uy v. Judge Adriano, supra note 49, at 503.
[61] Rollo, p. 67.
[66] Cesar Matas Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, Quezon City, Office of the Ombudsman, and People of the Philippines, supra note 51.
[68] Rollo, p. 102
[74] Id. at 22; 25-26.
[78] The Ombudsman v. Jurado, 583 Phil. 132, 148-149 (2008).
[82] Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo in People v. Lacson, 448 Phil. 317 421-422 (2003).
[85] Sps. Uv v. Judge Adriano, supra note 49, at 509.
[86] Rollo, p. 567.
[87] 292-A Phil. 144 (1993).
[90] Supra note 40.
[94] Sps. Uy v. Judge Adriano, supra note 49, at 503, citing Dansal v. Judge Fernandez, Sr., supra note 50, at 902-903.
[95] Roallos v. People, 723 Phil. 655, 671 (2013).
[96] Sps. Uy v. Judge Adriano, supra note 49, at 493, citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 US 514, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101, 92 S. Ct. 2182 (1972); see also Guiani v. Sandiganbayan, 435 Phil. 467, 480 (2002), and Sumbang, Jr. v. Gen. Court Martial Pro-Region 6, Iloilo City, 391 Phil. 929, 934 (2000).
© Supreme Court E-Library 2019
This website was designed and developed, and is maintained, by the E-Library Technical Staff in collaboration with the Management Information Systems Office.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl