Looking at the records ourselves we find no cogent reason to rule otherwise

Looking at the records ourselves we find no cogent

This preview shows page 67 - 68 out of 68 pages.

violation of the right to speedy trial.” Looking at the records ourselves, we find no cogent reason to rule otherwise. Gonzales v CA. Accused-appellant claimed that right to speedy trial was not afforded to him. On September 20, 1991 hearing public prosecutor failed to attend the hearing because of Muslim Legal Holiday. Does the petitioner was deprived of his right to speedy trial? Answer: No. It is apparent that the public prosecutor’s failure to attend the September 20, 1991 hearing was due to his good faith and belief that said date was a Muslim Legal Holiday. In determining the right of an accused to speedy trial, courts should do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. What offends the right of the accused to speedy trial are unjustified postponements which prolong trial for an unreasonable length of time. People v Tampal. Petitioner was the vice-president of the National Sugar Trading Corporation (NASUTRA). In 1986, a criminal complaint for economic sabotage through smuggling, with regard to the importation of raw sugar in 1983 and 1984 by NASUTRA. Thus, he was under arrest, however, the co-accused cannot be arrested because he remains outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. Petitioner filed a motion for immediate and separate trial invoking his constitutional right to a speedy trial because it has been 8 years delayed. However, respondent People of the Philippines opposed the said motion on the ground that a separate trial for petitioner would entail a lengthy and repetitious proceeding. Does the petitioner deprived of his right to speedy trial? Answer: Yes. The main objection of respondent People of the Philippines to the separate trial asked by petitioner is that such a procedure would entail a repetitive presentation of evidence. A separate trial necessarily requires a repetition of the presentation of the same evidence. But the resulting inconvenience and expense on the part of the Government cannot be given preference over the right to speedy trial and the protection to a person’s life, liberty or property accorded by the Constitution. The long delay has clearly prejudiced petitioner. If an accused cannot be placed under arrest because he remains outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, with more reason should his co-accused, who are under arrest, be entitled to a separate trial. A separate trial is in consonance with the right of an accused to a speedy trial as guaranteed to him by the 1987 Constitution. Dacanay v People. Petitioner merely sat and waited for 10 years after the case was submitted for resolution in 1979. It was only in 1989 when the case below was reraffled from and only after respondent trial judge court ordered the parties to follow-up and complete the transcript of stenographic notes that matters started to get moving towards a resolution of the case. However, it was not petitioner’s fault that the stenographic notes of the testimonies of the witnesses were not transcribed, yet neither was it the prosecution’s.
Image of page 67
Image of page 68

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 68 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Ulysses, Appellate court, Legal burden of proof, Trial court, Rights of the accused

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture