The Supreme Court in Spouses Henry and Rosario Uy v.

Judge Arsenio Adriano 1 citing Barker

v. Wingo2 identified the different interests of a defendant which may be affected by the violation
of the right to a speedy trial. It was held that prejudice should be assessed in the light of the
interests of a defendant, which the speedy trial right was designed to protect, namely:

(1) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration;

(2) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and
(3) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.

Of these, the most serious is the last, because the inability of a defendant to adequately prepare
his case skews the fairness of the entire system. If witnesses die or disappear during a delay, the
prejudice is obvious. There is also prejudice if defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately
events of the distant past. Loss of memory, however, is not always reflected in the record because
what has been forgotten can rarely be shown. Even if an accused is not incarcerated prior to trial,
he is still disadvantaged by restraints on his liberty and by living under a cloud of anxiety,
suspicion, and often hostility. After all, arrest is a public act that may seriously interfere with the
defendants liberty, whether he is free on bail or not, and that may disrupt his employment, drain
his financial resources, curtail his associations, subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety
in him, his family and friends.

1 G.R. NO. 159098, October 27, 2006

2 407 US 514