BOR_Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases

Question 1

What is the difference bet R to Speedy Disposition of Cases vs. R to Speedy Trial?

Answer 1

The right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial to the extent that the former applies to all cases, whether judicial, quasijudicial, or administrative cases. (Sec. 16, Art. III, 1987 Constitution); whereas, the latter applies to criminal cases only. (Sec. 14(2), Art. III,

Question 2

When is a Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases deemed violated?

Answer 2

Right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated when
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays;

or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured;

or even without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.

Question 3

Factors to consider in determining if the RTST is violated?

Answer 3

The factors to balance are the following:

a. Duration of the delay;
b. Reason thereof;
c. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and
d. Prejudice caused by such delay.

Question 4

Does the right include proceedings before, during and after the trial?

Answer 4

The right includes within its contemplation the periods before, during and after trial, such as preliminary investigations and fact-finding investigations conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. Further, this right applies to all cases pending before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies and not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature. (Almeda v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao), G.R. No. 204267, 25 July 2016)

Question 5

What is the criteria/standard to say that there is violation of the RTST?

Answer 5

Summ:
Inordinate delay
No irregularity was previously alleged
Complainant contributed to the delay

NO. Citing the case of Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that the right to speedy disposition of cases is violated only when there is inordinate delay. The Republic showed that it followed the procedure leading to the resolution of the preliminary investigation. When the Complaint was filed before the Ombudsman, it required the counter-affidavits of respondents. It even granted the motions for extension filed by Roman.

Despite this, Roman did not allege any irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary investigation and approval of the Resolution. Further the Republic explained that the multiple respondents and numerous documents involved made the case more complex and difficult to resolve.

The investigating officer needed to evaluate whether each accused impleaded is probably guilty of the charges. In addition, Roman contributed to the delay as he moved for an extension to file his counter-affidavit twice and filed another motion to consolidate the case with another complaint. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan and Roman, G.R. No. 231144, 19 Feb. 2020)

Question 6

What constitutes “inordinate delay”?

Answer 6

The right is deemed violated only when there is inordinate delay, such that the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays;

or when unjustified
postponements of the trial are asked for and secured,

or when without cause or unjustifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.

Question 7

Give the General Rule (2) and Exceptions to the Right to Public Trial.

Answer 7

GR:
1. Trial must be public in order to prevent possible abuses which may be committed against the accused; and
2. The attendance at the trial is open to all, irrespective of their relationship to the accused.

XPN: If the evidence to be adduced is “offensive to decency or public morals,” the public may be excluded.

Question 8

Difference bet Public Trial vs Publicized Trial?

Answer 8

The accused’s right to a public trial should not be confused with the freedom of the press and the public’s right to know as a justification for allowing the live broadcast of the trial.

The tendency of a high-profile case like the subject case to generate undue publicity with its concomitant undesirable effects weighs heavily against broadcasting the trial.