transcribed, yet neither was it the prosecution’s.
The respondent trial judge can hardly be faulted
either because he could not have rendered the
decision without the transcripts in question.
Does the petitioner deprived of his right to
speedy trial?
Answer:
No. An accused’s silence for a long time would
be interpreted as a waiver of his right to speedy trial. It is
fair to assume that he would have just continued to sleep
on his right—a situation amounting to laches—had the
respondent judge not taken the initiative of determining
the non-completion of the records and of ordering the
remedy precisely so he could dispose of the case. The
matter could have taken a different dimension if during
all those ten years when the case was reraffled, the
accused showed signs of asserting his right, or at least
made some overt act (like a motion for early disposition
or a motion to compel the stenographer to transcribe
stenographic notes) that he was not waiving it. As it is,
his silence would have to be interpreted as a waiver of
such right.
Dacanay v People.
Administrative complaint filed by Retired
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Juan S. Luzarraga
against Judge Amaro M. Meteoro, for serious
misconduct, gross inefficiency and neglect of
duty for prolonging the rendering of decision. On
the other hand, Judge Meteoro reason that he
was burdened with a heavy caseload and is a
stroke victim. However, it is a rule that when
circumstances arise that would prevent the
judge from disposing a case within the
reglementary period, all that he has to do is to
file an application with the Court asking for a
reasonable extension of time within which to
resolve the case. However, the record of this
administrative matter does not show that
respondent made an attempt to make such a
request. Instead, he preferred to keep the case
pending. Does the petitioner deprived of his right
to speedy trial?
Answer:
Yes. The public trust character of a judge’s
office imposes upon him the highest degree of
responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to
promptly administer justice. Thus, any delay in the
determination or resolution of a case, no matter how
insignificant the case may seem to a judge, is, at bottom,
delay in the administration of justice in general. The
suffering endured by just one person—whether plaintiff,
defendant, or accused—while awaiting a judgment that
may affect his life, honor, liberty, or property, taints the
entire judiciary’s performance in its solemn task of
administering justice. The failure to render a decision
within the 90-day period constitutes serious misconduct
in derogation of the speedy administration of justice.
Luzarraga v Meteoro.
This is a complaint against Judge Maxwel R.
Rosete, for gross ignorance of the law, grave
abuse of authority, incompetence, and
impropriety, for dismissing with prejudice a
criminal case for falsification of a private
document filed by complainant for not being
present in the hearing. Complainant claims that
the prosecution’s motion for postponement of
