Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Term Paper in Legal Research

    Uploaded by

    Claudine Jael
    Sheryl, as Eric's counsel, must explain to Eric that while Bernadine is entitled to request a postponement, her request may be denied at the court's discretion. Sheryl should note the time limits for speedy trial under R.A. 8493 and be prepared to request dismissal if the case is delayed beyond those limits without justification. In determining if Eric's right to a speedy trial has been violated, courts consider factors like length of delay, reason for delay, assertion of rights, and prejudice, as established in relevant jurisprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Term Paper in Legal Research

    Uploaded by

    Claudine Jael
    80 views7 pages
    Sheryl, as Eric's counsel, must explain to Eric that while Bernadine is entitled to request a postponement, her request may be denied at the court's discretion. Sheryl should note the time limits for speedy trial under R.A. 8493 and be prepared to request dismissal if the case is delayed beyond those limits without justification. In determining if Eric's right to a speedy trial has been violated, courts consider factors like length of delay, reason for delay, assertion of rights, and prejudice, as established in relevant jurisprudence.

    Original Description:

    Research

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sheryl, as Eric's counsel, must explain to Eric that while Bernadine is entitled to request a postponement, her request may be denied at the court's discretion. Sheryl should note the time limits for speedy trial under R.A. 8493 and be prepared to request dismissal if the case is delayed beyond those limits without justification. In determining if Eric's right to a speedy trial has been violated, courts consider factors like length of delay, reason for delay, assertion of rights, and prejudice, as established in relevant jurisprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views7 pages

    Term Paper in Legal Research

    Uploaded by

    Claudine Jael
    Sheryl, as Eric's counsel, must explain to Eric that while Bernadine is entitled to request a postponement, her request may be denied at the court's discretion. Sheryl should note the time limits for speedy trial under R.A. 8493 and be prepared to request dismissal if the case is delayed beyond those limits without justification. In determining if Eric's right to a speedy trial has been violated, courts consider factors like length of delay, reason for delay, assertion of rights, and prejudice, as established in relevant jurisprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    Term Paper in

    Legal
    Research

    Jael-Claudine B. Soriano

    59
    Sheryl, Eric's counsel, once asked for postponement and the court granted it since the
    opposing counsel, Bernadine, did not object. Eric then asked Sheryl not to allow any
    further postponements because his case has been pending for 8 years. When trial
    resumed, Bernadine moved to reset the trial because of her infant's ailment. What must
    Sheryl do?

    Introduction
    Supreme Court reiterated the old legal maxim, that justice delayed is justice
    denied and oftentimes, this maxim has proven to be true in the Philippine justice
    system. However, lawyers are not the only ones who are guilty of these delaying
    tactics, court dockets are often clogged and different legal issues often crop up that
    need extra time to be decided upon. As secured by constitutional guaranties, a speedy
    trial means a trial conducted according to fixed rules, regulations, and proceedings of
    law, free from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays manufactured by the
    ministers of justice. This often repeated adage requires the expeditious resolution of
    disputes, much more so in criminal cases where an accused is constitutionally
    guaranteed the right to a speedy trial. Our laws do have safeguards to ensure the
    prompt and speedy action on all types of legal actions and cases.

    Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution declares that:


    All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
    judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

    True, indeed, the 1987 Constitution provides the right not only to a speedy trial
    but also to a speedy judgment after trial. Hence, the Constitution mandates dispatch
    not only in the trial stage but also in the disposition thereof, warranting dismissals in
    case of violations thereof without the fault of the party concerned, not just the accused.
    The constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the
    accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and

    administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial


    hearings.
    The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the case
    against him was designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal
    prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the
    administration of justice by mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in
    the trial of criminal cases. The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to
    speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,
    capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are
    asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time
    is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.
    Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine whether a defendant
    has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that
    matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed,
    and such factors as length of the delay, reason for the delay, the defendants assertion
    or non-assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay, are
    considered.
    The inquiry as to whether or not an accused has been denied such right is not
    susceptible by precise qualification. The concept of a speedy disposition is a relative
    term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. Hence, base from my research,
    Jurisprudence has set forth the following guidelines:
    In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right to a speedy
    disposition of the case and to a speedy trial, Four (4) factors must be considered: (a)
    length of delay; (b) the reason for the delay; (c) the defendants assertion of his right;
    and (d) prejudice to the defendant. Closely related to the length of delay is the reason or
    justification of the State for such delay. Different weights should be assigned to different
    reasons or justifications invoked by the State. (Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
    162214, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRA 294, 312-313).

    Relative thereto, the Supreme Court has clarified that in determining the
    right of an accused to speedy trial, courts are required to do more than a mathematical
    computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. A
    mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is clearly insufficient, and particular
    regard must be given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.
    In Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, (G.R. No. 101689, 17 March 1993, 220 SCRA
    55) the Court ruled that there was no violation of the right to speedy trial and speedy
    disposition. The Court took into account the reasons for the delay, i.e., the frequent
    amendments of procedural laws by presidential decrees, the structural reorganizations
    in existing prosecutorial agencies and the creation of new ones by executive fiat,
    resulting in changes of personnel, preliminary jurisdiction, and the functions and powers
    of prosecuting agencies. The Court also considered the failure of the accused to assert
    such right, and the lack of prejudice caused by the delay to the accused.
    In Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, 408 Phil. 767 (2001), the
    complexity of the issues and the failure of the accused to invoke her right to speedy
    disposition at the appropriate time spelled defeat for her claim to the constitutional
    guarantee.
    According to Angchonco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, inordinate delay in resolving a
    criminal complaint, being violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process
    and to the speedy disposition of cases, warrants the dismissal of the criminal case.
    In Cadalin

    v.

    Philippine

    Overseas

    Employment

    Administrations

    Administrator,(G.R. No. 104776, 5 December 1994, 238 SCRA 721), the Court,
    considering also the complexity of the cases and the conduct of the parties lawyers,
    held that the right to speedy disposition was not violated therein.
    Petitioners objection to the prosecutions stand that he gave an implied
    consent to the separate trial of Criminal Case No. 119830 is belied by the records of the
    case. No objection was interposed by his defense counsel when this matter was
    discussed during the initial hearing. Petitioners conformity thereto can be deduced from
    his non-objection at the preliminary hearing when the prosecution manifested that the

    evidence to be presented would be only for Criminal Cases No. 119831-119832. His
    failure to object to the prosecutions manifestation that the cases be tried separately is
    fatal to his case. The acts, mistakes and negligence of counsel bind his client, except
    only when such mistakes would result in serious injustice.In fact, petitioners
    acquiescence is evident from the transcript of stenographic notes during the initial
    presentation of the Peoples evidence in the five BW cases.
    In the case of Tan vs. People, the length of delay, complexity of the issues and
    the petitioners failure to invoke said right to speedy trial at the appropriate time tolled
    the death knell on his claim to the constitutional guarantee. More importantly, in failing
    to interpose a timely objection to the prosecutions manifestation during the preliminary
    hearings that the cases be tried separately, one after the other, and petitioner was
    deemed to have acquiesced and waived his objection thereto. For the reasons abovestated, there is clearly insufficient ground to conclude that the prosecution is guilty of
    violating petitioners right to speedy trial (TAN vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 173637, April 21,
    2009, 3rd Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).
    The right of an accused to speedy trial is not violated by the mere postponement
    of scheduled hearings of the case. Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for
    an unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial.
    The right to speedy trial allows reasonable continuance so as not to deprive the
    prosecution its day in court.
    In the determination of whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been
    violated, certain factors may be considered and balanced against each other. These are
    length of delay, reason for the delay, assertion of the right or failure to assert it, and
    prejudice caused by the delay. The same factors may also be considered in answering
    judicial inquiry whether or not a person officially charged with the administration of
    justice has violated the speedy disposition of cases guarantee.

    Considering the jurisprudence laid down by the previous cases mentioned,


    Sheryl, as Erics counsel should explain to Eric that a motion for postponement is a
    privilege and not a right. Bernadines move for postponement should not assume beforehand

    that her motion will be granted. The grant or denial of a motion for postponement is a
    matter that is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and that she shall
    respect whatever the decisions of the court may be. However, Sheryl shall take note of
    the period set forth in R. A. 8493 for the Speedy Trial and/or Resolution of cases, and
    shall see to it that only the allowable periods of delay as provided in Section 10 thereof
    be excluded from computing the time within which trial must commence. Toward this
    end, Sheryl shall insist on the strict adherence to the period set forth in the law and shall
    be ready to move for the dismissal of the case, where there is delay or violation of the
    afforested periods.
    1

    1. 1 Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution


    2. (Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162214, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRA 294, 312313).
    3. In Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, (G.R. No. 101689, 17 March 1993, 220 SCRA 55)
    4. Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, 408 Phil. 767 (2001)
    5. Cadalin v. Philippine Overseas Employment Administrations Administrator,(G.R. No.
    104776, 5 December 1994, 238 SCRA 721)
    6. (TAN vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 173637, April 21, 2009, 3rd Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).
    7. Nelson Imperial, et al. vs. Maricel M. Joson, et al G.R. No. 160067
    8. Santos O. Francisco vs. Spouses Gerard and Maricel Joson Nelson G.R. Mo. 170410
    9. Imperial, et al. vs. Hilarion C. Felix, et al.,G.R. No. 171622, November 17, 2010.
    10. MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 003 Series of 2008
    11. Section 1 (h), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Procedure
    12. Angchonco, Jr. v. Ombudsman

    You might also like