This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-10-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution assuring an accused of counsel of his choice pertains specifically to a person under investigation. Even if we were to extend the choice of a counsel to an accused in a criminal prosecution, the matter of the accused getting a lawyer of his preference cannot be so absolute and arbitrary as would make the choice of counsel refer exclusively to the predilection of the accused.[15] In Amion v. Chiongson this Court stated:Withal, the word "preferably" under Section 12(1), Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling his defense. If the rule were otherwise, then, the tempo of a custodial investigation, will be solely in the hands of the accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer, who for one reason or another, is not available to protect his interest. This absurd scenario could not have been contemplated by the framers of the charter.[16] In our view, petitioners' dilatory tactics should no longer be allowed to trump the progress of the judicial process. | |||||
|
2001-08-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We find no merit in this line of argument. With the pendency before the Regional Trial Court of the unresolved motion to dismiss, the lower court would have deferred the immediate execution of the decision. It was respondent judge who was constitutionally mandated to resolve cases with dispatch within the prescribed period. A judge must be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his functions to promptly administer justice.[29] Any delay in the administration of justice not only results in depriving the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case but also negatively affects the image of the judiciary[30] and undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary.[31] | |||||