CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 1

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW - MANILA

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES

ARTICLE III Bill of Rights Thus, if the person accused were innocent, he may within the shortest
SECTION 16 time possible be spared from anxiety and apprehension arising from a
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF prosecution, and if culpable, he will not be kept long in suspense as to
the fate in store for him, within a period of course compatible with his
CASES opportunity to present any valid defense.

PADUA vs. ERICTA Remedy

Duty of the Courts
Courts should not brook undue delays in the ventilation and
determination of causes.
It should be their constant effort to assure that litigations are
prosecuted and resolved with dispatch.
Postponements of trials and hearings should not be allowed except on
meritorious grounds; and the grant or refusal thereof rests entirely in
the sound discretion of the Judge.
It goes without saying, however, that that discretion must be
reasonably and wisely exercised, in the light of the attendant
circumstances.
As was also pointed out in Sarmiento: "The remedy in the event of a
non-observance of this right is by habeas corpus if the accused were
restrained of his liberty, or by certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus
for the final dismissal of the case."
In the first Supreme Court decision after the 1935 Constitution took
effect, People v. Castañeda, as was pointed out by the ponente, Justice
Laurel:
"The Government should be the last to set an example of delay and
oppression in the administration of justice and it is the moral and legal
obligation of this court to see that the criminal proceedings against the
accused come to an end and that they be immediately discharged from
the custody of the law."

Some reasonable deferment of the proceedings may be allowed or
tolerated to the end that cases may be adjudged only after full and free
presentation of evidence by all the parties, specially where the
deferment would cause no substantial prejudice to any part. The
desideratum of a speedy disposition of cases should not, if at all
possible, result in the precipitate loss of a party's right to present
evidence and either in plaintiff's being non-suited or the defendant's
being pronounced liable under an ex parte judgment.
Trail at the earliest opportunity
: "An accused person is entitled to a trial at the earliest opportunity.
... He cannot be oppressed by delaying the commencement of trial for
an unreasonable length of time. If the proceedings pending trial are
deferred, the trial itself is necessarily delayed."
Also applicable to operation commenced by private person
"The Constitution does not say that the right to a speedy trial may be

JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)

availed of only where the prosecution for crime is commenced and
Error on the part of the Judge in this case undertaken by the fiscal. It does not exclude from its operation cases
The Trial Court unaccountably ignored the fact that defendants' commenced by private individuals. Where once a person is
counsel had twice applied for and been granted postponements of the prosecuted criminally, he is entitled to a speedy trial, irrespective of
trial; that plaintiffs counsel had filed a written motion for the nature of the offense or the manner in which it is authorized to be
postponement five (5) days prior to the hearing sought to be commenced.”
transferred, and this was the very first such motion filed by him; that
although the motion for postponement could have been objected to, no
opposition was presented by defendants, which was not surprising
considering that their counsel had himself already obtained two (2)
postponements; that the ground for cancellation was not entirely
without merit:

the counsel had a case in the Tarlac Court scheduled on the same day,
March 6, 1974, which had been pending since 1964 and which the
Tarlac Court understandably was anxious to terminate; that the Padua
motion for postponement sought cancellation of only one (1) of three
settings, leaving the case to proceed on the two (2) subsequent hearing
dates; and the motion had been verbally reiterated by plaintiffs wife on
the day of the hearing sought to be cancelled,

Under the circumstances, and in the light of the precedents set out in
the opening paragraphs of this opinion, the respondent Judge's action
was unreasonable, capricious and oppressive, and should be as it
is hereby annulled.

FLORES vs. PEOPLE

Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial
The constitutional right to a speedy trial, as was noted in a recent
decision, Acebedo v. Sarmiento, "means one free from vexatious,
capricious and oppressive delays, ... ."