chapter 19 speedy disposition of cases

Conde vs rivera
Facts: Aurelia Conde, formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena, Tayabas, has been forced to
respond to no less the five information for various crimes and misdemeanors, has appeared with
her witnesses and counsel at hearings no less than on eight different occasions only to see the
cause postponed, has twice been required to come to the Supreme Court for protection, and now,
after the passage of more than one year from the time when the first information was filed, seems
as far away from a definite resolution of her troubles as she was when originally charged.

Issue: Whether or Not petitioner has been denied her right to a speedy and impartial trial.

Held: Philippine organic and statutory law expressly guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the
accused shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial. Aurelia Conde, like all other accused persons,
has a right to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she may go free, and she has been deprived of
that right in defiance of law. We lay down the legal proposition that, where a prosecuting officer,
without good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a
reasonable period of time, as in this instance for more than a year, the accused is entitled to relief
by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of
his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.

■ Flores Vs. People (December 10, 1974)

Flores vs. People

GR L-25769 | December 10, 1974

FACTS:

Petitioners, Francisco Flores and Francisco Angel, were accused for robbery. Information was
filed in December 1951. They were found guilty of the crime charged in November 1955. Notice
of appeal was file in December 1955. It was until February 1958 that action was taken by CA—a
resolution remanding the records of the case to the lower court for a rehearing of the testimony of
a certain witness deemed material for the disposition of the case. Such resolution was amended
dated August 1959 which granted the petitioners to set aside the decision so that evidence for the
defense on new facts may be received and a new decision in lieu of the old one may be rendered.
The case was returned to the lower court but nothing was done for about a year because the
offended party failed to appear despite the 6/7 dates set for such hearing. Furthermore, when the
offended party took the witness stand, his testimony was characterized as a mere fiasco as he
could no longer remember the details of the alleged crime and even failed to identify the 2
accused.

The trial court instead of rendering a decision sent back the records to the appellate tribunal. 5
more years elapsed without anything being done, petitioners sought dismissal of the case against
them due to inordinate delay in the disposition (from December 1955- May 1965). CA was
unresponsive notwithstanding the vigorous plea of the petitioners, its last order being a denial of a
second MR dated January 1966. CA’s defense is that the case was not properly captioned as
“People of the Philippines” and without “Court of Appeals” being made a party to the petition.

ISSUE: WON constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.

HELD: YES. Petition for certiorari was granted. Orders denying Motion to dismiss as Motion to
Reconsideration are set aside and nullified. Criminal Case against petitioners was dismissed.

Constitutional right to a speedy trial means one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive
delays. An accused is entitled to a trial at the earliest opportunity. He cannot be oppressed by
delaying the commencement of the trial for an unreasonable length of time. The Constitution does
not say that such right may be availed only where the prosecution of a crime is commenced and
undertaken by the fiscal. It does not exclude from its operation cases commenced by private
individuals. “Where a person is prosecuted criminally, he is entitled to a speedy trial, irrespective
of the nature of the offense or the manner in which it is authorized to be commenced”.

Technicalities should give way to the realities of the situation. There should not be too much
significance attached to the procedural defect (refer to CA’s defense). CA failed to accord respect
to this particular constitutional right amounting at the very least to a grave abuse of discretion.