Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. Distinction between Section 14 and Section 16 While the rights of an accused only apply to the trial phase of criminal cases, the right to a speedy disposition of cases covers ALL phases of JUDICIAL, QUASI- JUDICIAL or ADMINISTRATIVE proceedings. Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases Raul H. Sesbreno has been a practicing lawyer for over 30 years. The victim, Luciano Amparado, was a porter of William Lines, Inc., a shipping company also based in Cebu. Appellant was found guilty the crime of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, for the death of one Luciano Amparado. He filed a Motion To Quash Warrant of Arrest And/Or to Grant Bail. The hearing did not push through due to the fact that it was Saturday, and there was no prosecutor available. The hearing on the bail application was then reset. Subsequently, the prosecution filed an Opposition to the Urgent Application for Bail and presented both testimonial and documentary evidence in connection with the said Opposition. Later, the trial court denied the application for bail. Appellant alleges that his right to a speedy disposition of his case was violated. Did the trial court erred in denying the accused-appellant his right to speedy trial and speedy disposition of his case. Answer: No. There is no showing that appellant raised the issue of lack of notice of raffle at the earliest opportunity. Appellant had willingly and actively participated in these proceedings before the trial court. By actively participating thereon, appellant is now deemed estopped from complaining that the proceedings were technically defective for want of a notice of the raffle of his case. To say the least, appellants claim comes too late to be of any merit. Also, there is no undue delay of the bail hearings could be imputed, much less persuasively shown, against appellee and the trial court. People vs. Sesbreno The Ombudsman filed a case in the Sandiganbayan against Mayor Binay of Makati for Illegal Use of Public Funds and Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The petitioner filed a motion to quash alleging that the delay of more than 6 years constituted a violation of his constitutional right of due process which was subsequently denied and further, the latter’s motion for reconsideration. In the meantime, the prosecution filed a motion to suspend the accused pendente lite (benefits) which was later granted and ordered for a 90- day suspension. A petition for certiorari was filed by Mayor Binay in the SC praying that the denial of his motion for reconsideration be set aside and claims that he was denied of his rights when the suspension was ordered even before he could file his reply to the petitioner’s opposition.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 7 pages?
- Fall '16
- criminal law, Complaint, speedy disposition