RE: Mere delay in the proceedings is not tantamount to a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases or speedy trial
BALANCING TEST
In the earlier case of Martin v. Ver,[37] we first adopted the "balancing test" in determining whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial and/or speedy disposition of cases has been violated based on the landmark ruling of Barker v. Wingo.[38]
The test compels an ad hoc approach, where in the conduct of both the prosecution and the defense are assessed in light of the four-fold factors, to wit:
(1) length of delay;
(2) reason for the delay;
(3) defendant's assertion or non-assertion of the right; and
(4) prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.
Here, the Court is mindful of the length of time that it took the Sandiganbayan to dispose of the criminal cases. But records also show that petitioners were not blameless for the protracted proceedings.
Undeniably, petitioners contributed to the delay in the proceedings in more ways than the prosecution and the Sandiganbayan did. In as early as July 2008, the case was ready to be submitted for resolution upon petitioners' compliance with the formal offer of evidence. But petitioners were not ready to file their formal offer of evidence, and instead, they moved for the formal marking of documents that they presented during trial in mere photocopies. Clearly, the proximal cause of the delay was petitioners' failure to present and submit competent copies of their evidence. Petitioners then had the opportunity to complete their evidence, but still, they were not able to fully submit the evidence they wanted to present as the documents they submitted remained unverifiable. What is more, despite the fact that the Sandiganbayan's action on the motions were concededly late for years, the defense still asked for additional time to comply with those delayed orders. The sense of urgency that petitioners advocate before this Court is evidently wanting in the proceedings below.
Inasmuch as the delay is mainly attributable to the defense's actions, we have basis to conclude that such delay did not cause significant prejudice to petitioners' cause to warrant the outright dismissal of the cases. Prejudice, in reference to the violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases or speedy trial, is assessed based on the interest of the accused sought to be protected by such rights, i.e., to prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration, minimize anxiety and concern of the accused, and limit the possibility that their defense will be impaired.
While the Constitution guarantees the right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases, this constitutional right is not a magical invocation that can be cunningly used by the accused for his or her advantage. This right is not a last line of remedy when the accused find themselves on the losing end of the proceedings. The State's duty to prosecute cases is just as equally important and cannot be disregarded at the whim of the accused, especially when it appears that the contention was raised as a mere afterthought. (ISMAEL et al. vs. People, G.R. Nos. 234435-36. February 06, 2023)
LOPEZ, M., J.
Read the full discussion here:
FOOTNOTES / REFERENCES
read here:
part 1 https://pastepeso.com/xg5kfz
SUGGESTED READINGS:
FOLLOW US!
📎 Bio
🛒 Shop
⚖️ Blog
🤝 Business
Comments