100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 67 - 68 out of 68 pages.
violation of the right to speedy trial.” Looking at therecords ourselves, we find no cogent reason to ruleotherwise. Gonzales v CA.Accused-appellant claimed that right to speedytrial was not afforded to him. On September 20,1991 hearing public prosecutor failed to attendthe hearing because of Muslim Legal Holiday.Does the petitioner was deprived of his right tospeedy trial?Answer:No. It is apparent that the public prosecutor’sfailure to attend the September 20, 1991 hearing wasdue to his good faith and belief that said date was aMuslim Legal Holiday. In determining the right of anaccused to speedy trial, courts should do more than amathematical computation of the number ofpostponements of the scheduled hearings of the case.What offends the right of the accused to speedy trial areunjustified postponements which prolong trial for anunreasonable length of time. People v Tampal.Petitioner was the vice-president of the NationalSugar Trading Corporation (NASUTRA). In1986, a criminal complaint for economicsabotage through smuggling, with regard to theimportation of raw sugar in 1983 and 1984 byNASUTRA. Thus, he was under arrest, however,the co-accused cannot be arrested because heremains outside the territorial jurisdiction of thePhilippines. Petitioner filed a motion forimmediate and separate trial invoking hisconstitutional right to a speedy trial because ithas been 8 years delayed. However, respondentPeople of the Philippines opposed the saidmotion on the ground that a separate trial forpetitioner would entail a lengthy and repetitiousproceeding. Does the petitioner deprived of hisright to speedy trial?Answer:Yes. The main objection of respondent Peopleof the Philippines to the separate trial asked by petitioneris that such a procedure would entail a repetitivepresentation of evidence. A separate trial necessarilyrequires a repetition of the presentation of the sameevidence. But the resulting inconvenience and expenseon the part of the Government cannot be givenpreference over the right to speedy trial and theprotection to a person’s life, liberty or property accordedby the Constitution. The long delay has clearlyprejudiced petitioner. If an accused cannot be placedunder arrest because he remains outside the territorialjurisdiction of the Philippines, with more reason shouldhis co-accused, who are under arrest, be entitled to aseparate trial. A separate trial is in consonance with theright of an accused to a speedy trial as guaranteed tohim by the 1987 Constitution. Dacanay v People.Petitioner merely sat and waited for 10 yearsafter the case was submitted for resolution in1979. It was only in 1989 when the case belowwas reraffled from and only after respondent trialjudge court ordered the parties to follow-up andcomplete the transcript of stenographic notesthat matters started to get moving towards aresolution of the case. However, it was notpetitioner’s fault that the stenographic notes ofthe testimonies of the witnesses were nottranscribed, yet neither was it the prosecution’s.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 68 pages?
Ulysses, Appellate court, Legal burden of proof, Trial court, Rights of the accused