Section 16. Right to speedy disposition of cases

Question 1

Section 16 codal provision

Answer 1

All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.

Question 2

What is speedy disposition of cases?

Answer 2

The concept of “speedy disposition of cases,” like “speedy trial,” is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. In the determination of whether or not the right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are length of delay, reason for the delay, assertion of the right or failure to assert it, and prejudice caused by the delay. (Caballero v. Alfonso 1987)

Question 3

What is the difference between the “right to speedy trial” and the “right to speedy disposition of cases”?

Answer 3

1. Speedy trial in section 14 — covers only the trial phase of criminal cases,
2. Speedy disposition of cases in section 16 — covers all phases of any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings.

Question 4

What remedy does a person have if there has been unreasonable delay in the resolution of a case?

Answer 4

Dismissal through mandamus. (Roque v. Ombudsman 1999)

Question 5

There are four special writs which the courts may issue

Answer 5

1. Writ of Habeas Corpus
2. Writ of Amparo
3. Writ of Habeas Data
4. Writ of Kalikasan

Question 6

Is the right waived by inaction?

Answer 6

Yes, the right to speedy disposition of cases can be waived if one does not invoke it.

Question 7

On August 12, 2005, Remulla filed a criminal complaint against
Maliksi before the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Section 3I of
RA 3019. He alleged that Maliksi, as governor of Cavite, cause the
purchase of certain medical supplies from Allied Medical Laboratories
Corporation in November 2002 without conducting any public bidding. On
December 15, 2005, Maliksi filed his counter-affidavit. After almost nine
(9) years, in a resolution dated August 27, 2014, the Ombudsman found
probable cause against Maliksi for violation of Section 3 I of RA 3019. Was
Maliksi’s right to speedy disposition of cases violated

Answer 7

“Held: Yes. The right to a speedy disposition of cases is a relative concept.
It is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by:
1. vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or 2. when without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time
is allowed to elapse.
Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine whether the
defendant has been denied his right to a speedy disposition of a case, in
which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are
weighed.
In this case, the delay incurred in the proceedings lasted for a total period
of nine (9) years. Even if the Court excludes the fact-finding stage of three
(3) years, there was still six (6) years of inordinate delay. The prosecution
could not give an acceptable reason to justify the 9-year interval before
the case was filed in court. The proceedings were marred by the delay in
the mechanical transfer of documents and records. No steps were taken
by the Ombudsman to ensure that the preliminary investigation would be
resolved in a timely manner. In light of the circumstances of this case,
the Court does not give great weight to Maliksi’s lack of objection over
the delay because the Prosecution failed to defend the Ombudsman’s
inaction.

Question 8

The Office of the Ombudsman received an anonymous complaint against Amelia May Constantino and Cesar Cagang among others for the alleged corruption. The information was filed after investigation albeit 7 years from the start of the investigation conducted by the Ombudsman. Cagang filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because of the alleged violation of the accused’s right to the speedy disposition of cases.
Issue: Whether or not the right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases was violated

Answer 8

This Court finds, however, that despite the pendency of the case since 2003, petitioner only invoked his right to speedy disposition of cases when the informations were filed on November 17, 2011. Here, petitioner was aware that the preliminary investigation was not yet terminated.
Admittedly, while there was delay, petitioner has not shown that he asserted his rights during this period, choosing instead to wait until the information was filed against him with the Sandiganbayan.
The records of the case show that the transactions investigated are complex and numerous. As respondent points out, there were over a hundred individuals investigated, and eventually, 40 of them were determined to have been involved in 81 different anomalous transactions.

Question 9

Summary of the important teachings in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan with discussions:

Answer 9

1. Delays during the conduct of the preliminary investigation shall be counted against the Prosecution, but delays during the fact-,finding stage are excluded in the computation;
2. The right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial must be timely raised. The respondents must file the appropriate motion upon the lapse of the procedural periods.
   Otherwise, they are deemed to have waived their right to speedy disposition of cases.
3. Determination of the length of delay is never mechanical. Courts must consider the entire context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be weighed to the simplicity or complexity of the issues raised.
4. It’s not a mathematical computation of the period

.

Question 10

In criminal cases, what is the effect if the delay is caused the judge , prosecution, accused?

Answer 10

(a) Delays caused by the Judge
If the delay is caused by the judge because he is too slow for instance in the Licaros case the Sandiganbayan decided the case after ten (10) years of after trial. So the delay is attributable to the Court and it resulted to dismissal.
(b) Delays caused by the Prosecution
The delay can be attributable to the prosecution, at the time of the trial the prosecution is always not ready asking for postponements all the time. If it does that and there is no basis it is unreasonable basis for the postponements the case can be dismissed.
(c) Delays caused by the Accused
That is never counted actually in order to benefit him. That is absurd. What I will do [as the accused] is very simple, I will keep on postponing then I will invoke my right to speedy trial. That will make no sense anymore, right? I think we all understand that.
• However, in other context actually as in Civil Cases. I believe it is
the same thing. The delay that will result to dismissal will have to be more often than not on the side of the plaintiff: failure to prosecute.