Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Legal Research On Right To Counsel On Admin Hearings

    Uploaded by

    NC Bergonia
    The document summarizes three legal cases related to the right to a speedy trial: 1) In De Vera v. Layague, the court ruled that the constitutional mandate for prompt case resolution applies to both merits decisions and interlocutory matters. 2) In State v. Frith, the court defined a speedy trial as preventing oppressive delays in criminal prosecution and mandating reasonable dispatch in trials. 3) In Marialen C. Corpuz and Antonio H. Roman, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan, the court identified four factors to determine if a speedy trial right was deprived: length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of rights, and prejudice

    Copyright:

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

    Legal Research On Right To Counsel On Admin Hearings

    Uploaded by

    NC Bergonia
    13 views2 pages
    The document summarizes three legal cases related to the right to a speedy trial: 1) In De Vera v. Layague, the court ruled that the constitutional mandate for prompt case resolution applies to both merits decisions and interlocutory matters. 2) In State v. Frith, the court defined a speedy trial as preventing oppressive delays in criminal prosecution and mandating reasonable dispatch in trials. 3) In Marialen C. Corpuz and Antonio H. Roman, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan, the court identified four factors to determine if a speedy trial right was deprived: length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of rights, and prejudice

    Original Title

    Legal Research on Right to Counsel on Admin Hearings (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes three legal cases related to the right to a speedy trial: 1) In De Vera v. Layague, the court ruled that the constitutional mandate for prompt case resolution applies to both merits decisions and interlocutory matters. 2) In State v. Frith, the court defined a speedy trial as preventing oppressive delays in criminal prosecution and mandating reasonable dispatch in trials. 3) In Marialen C. Corpuz and Antonio H. Roman, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan, the court identified four factors to determine if a speedy trial right was deprived: length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of rights, and prejudice

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views2 pages

    Legal Research On Right To Counsel On Admin Hearings

    Uploaded by

    NC Bergonia
    The document summarizes three legal cases related to the right to a speedy trial: 1) In De Vera v. Layague, the court ruled that the constitutional mandate for prompt case resolution applies to both merits decisions and interlocutory matters. 2) In State v. Frith, the court defined a speedy trial as preventing oppressive delays in criminal prosecution and mandating reasonable dispatch in trials. 3) In Marialen C. Corpuz and Antonio H. Roman, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan, the court identified four factors to determine if a speedy trial right was deprived: length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of rights, and prejudice

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    To: Atty.

    Vigor Mendoza

    From: Gerald Cesar G. Chavez and Regine Yan-Cruz

    Re: Legal Research on Right to Speedy Trial Cases

    SIR VDM:

    This serves as our research on the above subject matter:

    In the case of In De Vera v. Layague, the court held that:

    The constitutional mandate to promptly dispose of cases does not only refer to the
    decision of cases on their merits, but also to the resolution of motions and other
    interlocutory matters, as the constitutional provisions explicitly mention "cases" and
    "matters." Therefore, respondent judge must not be excused for his delay in resolving
    the incident in Civil Case.

    In another case, specifically the case of State v. Frith, 194 So. 1 (1940). wherein there
    was a discussion as to what constitutes speedy trial, the court ruled that: “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. Such right to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of a case is
    violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and
    oppressive delays. 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.

    In the case of MARIALEN C. CORPUZ and ANTONIO H. ROMAN, SR., petitioners,


    vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN (Special Fourth Division) and THE PEOPLE OF THE
    PHILIPPINES, the court ruled that the elements in determining whether the accused
    has been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the case and to a speedy trial,
    four factors must be considered: (a) length of delay; (b) the reason for the delay; (c) the
    defendant’s assertion of his right; and (d) prejudice to the defendant. Prejudice should
    be assessed in the light of the interest of the defendant that the speedy trial was

    1
    designed to protect, namely: to prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration; to minimize
    anxiety and concerns of the accused to trial; and to limit the possibility that his defense
    will be impaired. Of these, the most serious is the last, because the inability of a
    defendant adequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system. There
    is also prejudice if the defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately the events of the
    distant past. Even if the accused is not imprisoned prior to trial, he is still
    disadvantaged by restraints on his liberty and by living under a cloud of anxiety,
    suspicion and often, hostility. His financial resources may be drained, his association is
    curtailed, and he is subjected to public obloquy.

    References:

    De Vera v. Layague, 341 SCRA 67 (2000).

    MARIALEN C. CORPUZ and ANTONIO H. ROMAN, SR. vs.


    THE SANDIGANBAYAN (Special Fourth Division) G.R. No. 162214 (lawphil.net)

    --- NOTHING FOLLOWS ---

    You might also like