Father Saturnino Urios University

College of Law
San Francisco Street, Butuan City



Every Peoples Right for Speedy Trial and Timely
Resolution of Criminal Cases
______________________________


A Proposal

Presented to the

College of Law

Father Saturnino Urios University

Butuan City, Philippines

______________________________


In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the course

Legal Research
5:30-7:30 F
______________________________


Submitted by:
LEMUEL TAN RUIZ


Submitted to:
Atty. Anthony Vitor

INTRODUCTION
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8493. AN ACT TO ENSURE A SPEEDY
TRIAL OF ALL CRIMINAL CASES BEFORE THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT,
AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

It has been said 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 delaying tactics,
court dockets are often clogged and different legal issues often crop up that
need extra time to be decided upon. Our laws do have safeguards to
ensure the prompt and speedy action on all types of legal actions and
cases.
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 case of
Caballero vs. Alfonso, Jr., laid down the guidelines in determining the
applicability of the speedy disposition formula:
. . . (S)peedy disposition of cases is a relative term. Just like the
constitutional guarantee of speedy trial accorded an accused
in all criminal proceedings, speedy disposition of cases is a
flexible concept. It is consistent with delays and depends upon
the circumstances. What the Constitution prohibits are
unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays which render
rights nugatory.

As held in Gonzales vs. Sandiganbayan:
. . . (T)he 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 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, reason for the delay, the defendants assertion or non-
assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting
from the delay, are considered.
In addition, Section 1 (h), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of
Procedure states that one of the rights of an accused is to have a speedy,
impartial and public trial.
A speedy trial is one conducted according to the law of criminal
procedure and the rules and regulations, free from vexatious, capricious
and oppressive delays. The primordial purpose of this constitutional right is
to prevent the oppression of an accused by delaying criminal prosecution
for an indefinite period of time.
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.
THE RESEARCHERS VIEW ON DISCRIMINATION

September 8, 2013, the dead body of the advertising executive,
Kristel "Kae" Davantes was found with multiple stabs and thrown into a
creek at Silang Cavite.
On September 11, 2013, task force KAE was made by the
Philippine National Police right after the mandate of the President of the
Philippines, Mr. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III.
September 16, 2013, the authorities offered a reward to those people
who can give information to the whereabouts of the suspects. Not long
after, the President raised the reward to Two Million Pesos (P
2,000,000.00).
With the consistency and perseverance of the Philippine National
Police (PNP), not long after the first suspect was captured and so as the
others involved in the crime not long after.
But the people who followed the story of Kae since when her corpse
was found until the capture of the suspects, as well as the family of the
victims of the same crime was left to wish that every murder case such as
this and alike must have the same action and speedy resolution.
Now even when capturing the criminals here in the Philippines we
can no longer say it is justice for all, it is only for the people who have
money, who can afford big rewards and/or has connections in the
Government. This is why we have the Police to protect us, to give is justice.
The PNP is supposed to be our reward from the Government for the taxes
we pay. If the case is that reward only brings out for speedy resolution of
criminal cases then we should just abolish the PNP.
This is the trend nowadays; in order to resolve the case quickly we
have to impose a reward. But this is in the first place the work of our
Government and the authorities to give speedy justice on crimes. The
difference when a reward is imposed is that the authorities act fast because
the reward sort of becomes a bribe and it motivates them.
Sometimes it is not just the money or reward that motivates the
authorities to act on it fast, when the media is so focused in the issue they
tend to deliver justice fast but when the media starts not focus on the case
then the resolution stops, progresses slowly or their interest ceases.
This very same thing happened to the grim fate of the 16 year old boy
John Phillip Malla. He was seen on closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage
walking with two others along Bilibid Viejo Street and being followed by
three men. The three students and three suspects then turned to a street,
where the alleged stabbing occurred. The actual stabbing was not captured
on camera but was later found by a Barangay Kagawad lying on the road,
dead with more than 20 stab wounds. He was pronounced dead on arrival
in Ospital ng Sampaloc. Police said robbery may not be behind the crime,
as the valuables of the victim were not taken
The authorities did not have interest on the case because maybe it
was not so focused by the media or that their family cant afford to give
reward. What the family did was they personally helped the authorities in
solving the case so to give justice for the death of John Phillip. They give
evidence and photographs of certain acquaintances of the boy to the
authorities which made them act on the case.
The police contend that even though there are many witnesses on
the case of John Phillip no one wants to talk about for fear of being the next
one to be murdered.
The sad part about it was no task force was created and no bounty
was offered by anyone. It was his familys effort that made the case prosper
by taking part in the investigation and giving the evidence and to the extent
of loaning money for it to be resolved.
The appeal of the family of John Phillip is that they could also taste
the comfort and care of the government.
In late November and early December, the ABA Rule of Law
Initiative (ABA ROLI) trained 97 trial court judges on the
1998Speedy Trial Act. The training is meant to enhance the
acts implementation in criminal trials by minimizing
lawyers delay tactics and reducing the courts caseload.
Participants, who said the act is rarely used, hailed the
trainings held in Cebu and Manila.
Hon. Teresita Galanida of Mandaue City said, I have
learned new effective pre-trial techniques that I can use to
minimize motions for extensions and promptly dispose of
cases. In his opening remarks, Adolfo S. Azcuna, the
Philippine Judicial Academys (PhilJAs) chancellor and
former Supreme Court justice, expressed his deepest
appreciation for the program and for the collaborative
efforts of PhilJA, the Supreme Court, U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) and ABA ROLI.
This is a culmination of a long dream and finally it is a
reality, he said. The importance of speedy trial and the
disposition of criminal and civil cases cannot be
emphasized enough. Justice can only be achieved if it is
delivered timely and completely.
Associate Supreme Court justices Diosdado Peralta and
Lucas Bersamin, who at the request of ABA ROLI penned a
handbook for judges, discussed the laws and rules of
procedure related to speedy trial and disposition of civil
and criminal cases. They also provided insights on the root
causes of litigation delay and described innovative
techniques to handle common problems.
Presiding judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg of Cebu City
shared her experiences with case management techniques
that facilitate workflow and help monitor case progress,
which helped clear the caseload she inherited in her court.
Leadership of the judge is critical in achieving success,
she said. Commitment in setting standards and goals to
create an environment of expectation and involving court
staff in making policies will breed a culture of efficiency in
the administration of justice.
Judge Marvin Hamilton of the Superior Court of Alaska
spoke on how, as a sitting trial judge, he monitors the
amount of time either party to a criminal matter is spending
on their case, all with an eye towards reminding them that
sanctions are available if either side violates the speedy
trial laws. He said that judges have a moral and legal
obligation to ensure the laws and rights of criminal
defendants are observed from the bench. He said, Judges
are the beacons of hope, the assurance of fairness and
promise of justice. It is important to remind ourselves that
these are real individuals looking to us for help, so we
need to be the keepers of those promises.
ABA ROLIs program to increase compliance with the act
was launched two years ago with support from USAID.
ABA ROLI has worked with the Public Attorneys Office,
helping it draft a set of guidelines for filing motions to
dismiss for failure to prosecute in a timely manner. Tens of
thousands of these motions have since been filed. ABA
ROLI has also worked with PhilJA on developing training
modules to boost judges ability to enforce the act and on
commissioning two Supreme Court justices to write a
judicial handbook on using the power of the bench to
increase compliance with the act.

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. x x x. 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. xxxx (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.

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. xxxxx
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, petitioner was deemed to have
acquiesced and waived his objection thereto. For the reasons above-
stated, 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.).


CONCLUSION
If the rich people has the right to have a speedy resolution, that
should also be the same to our poor country men who cant afford rewards.
If this is what it takes for the fast capture of the crime offenders, then I
would suggest putting up a law that provides for a reward system for all the
crimes not considering their social standing and wealth for every Filipino.
This is so that it is not used for pogi points by the authorities.
The story of Kae and John Phillip should be a lesson, that money,
reward or media is not the basis for speedy resolution of crimes.
The families left has been hurt so badly for the loss of their loved one,
I hope our government and authorities does not put more to it.
In the recent case of Dante T. Tan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 173637, 21 April 2009, the Supreme Court laid down the principles
when the right to speedy trial can be invoked.
Dante Tan, along with other persons, was charged for his alleged
participation in the manipulation of stock prices of the BW shares.
Tan was arraigned on 16 January 2001, and pleaded not guilty to the
charges. On 6 February 2001, the pre-trial was concluded, and a pre-trial
order set, among other things, the first date of trial on 27 February 2001.
On 2 December 2003, Tan moved to dismiss the criminal case
against him due to the prosecutions alleged failure to prosecute. Claiming
violation of his right to speedy trial, Tan faults the prosecution for failing to
prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time and without giving
any excuse or justification for the delay. According to Tan, he was
persistent in asserting his right to speedy trial, which he had allegedly done
on several instances. Finally, he claimed to have been substantially
prejudiced by this delay.
The Supreme Court, in ruling that there was no sufficient ground to
conclude that the prosecution is guilty of violating Tans right to speedy
trial, found 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.
"Tans 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. Tans 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.
"Moreover, although periods for trial have been stipulated, these
periods are not absolute. Where periods have been set, certain exclusions
are allowed by law. After all, this Court and the law recognize that it is but
a fact that judicial proceedings do not exist in a vacuum and must contend
with the realities of everyday life. In spite of the prescribed time limits,
jurisprudence continues to adopt the view that the fundamentally
recognized principle is that the concept of speedy trial is a relative term and
must necessarily be a flexible concept.
"As to the assertion that delay in the presentation of evidence for
Criminal Case No. 119830 has prejudiced Tan because the witnesses for
the defense may no longer be available at this time, suffice it to say that the
burden of proving his guilt rests upon the prosecution. Should the
prosecution fail for any reason to present evidence sufficient to show his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Tan will be acquitted. It is safely
entrenched in our jurisprudence that unless the prosecution discharges its
burden to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt, the latter
need not even offer evidence in his behalf.
"In the cases involving Tan, the length of delay, complexity of the
issues and his 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, Tan was deemed to have acquiesced and
waived his objection thereto.
"The old adage that justice delayed is justice denied has never been
more valid than in our jurisdiction, where it is not a rarity for a case to drag
in our courts for years and years and even decades. It was this difficulty
that inspired the constitutional requirement that the rules of court to be
promulgated by the Supreme Court shall provide for a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy trial and disposition of cases.
Indeed, for justice to prevail, the scales must balance, for justice is not to
be dispensed for the accused alone."