This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan,[30] the Court ruled that there was no violation of the right to speedy trial and speedy disposition. The Court took into account the reasons for the delay, i.e., the frequent amendments of procedural laws by presidential decrees, the structural reorganizations in existing prosecutorial agencies and the creation of new ones by executive fiat, resulting in changes of personnel, preliminary jurisdiction, and the functions and powers of prosecuting agencies. The Court also considered the failure of the accused to assert such right, and the lack of prejudice caused by the delay to the accused. | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan,[33] this Court citing People v. Marquez affirmed:[34] | |||||
|
2005-03-04 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| SEC.16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. Under the foregoing provision, any party to a case has the right to demand on all officials tasked with the administration of justice to expedite its disposition. However, the concept of speedy disposition is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.[5] A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient.[6] In applying the Constitutional guarantee, particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances of each case. | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Neither Is There Factual Support To Petitioner'S Claim That The 4-Year Delay In The Completion Of The Preliminary Investigation Is Unexplained. The Record Clearly Shows That The Ombudsman Exerted Utmost Effort To Determine The Veracity Of Abaño'S Allegations Against Petitioner. That It Took The Nbi Almost Two Years To Complete Its Report On The Matter Does Not Mean That Petitioner'S Right To Speedy Disposition Of The Charge Was Brushed Aside. If Delay May Be Imputed In The Proceedings, The Same Should Be Reckoned Only From October 25, 1991 When Petitioner Filed His Counter-Affidavit.[66] Thirty-Six (36) Days Thereafter Or On November 29, 1991, Gio Ii Caraos Issued The Resolution Recommending The Filing Of The Information. Further Delay, If Indeed It Could Be Called One, Was Caused By The Review Of Gio Ii Caraos' Recommendation By Her Superiors. Some Seven And A Half Months Later, Or On June 11, 1992, The Information Was Filed With The Sandiganbayan. There Is Thus No Reason To Conclude That The Ombudsman Ran Roughshod Over The Petitioner'S Right To A Speedy Preliminary Investigation. In The Determination Of Whether Or Not That Right Has Been Violated, The Factors That May Be Considered And Weighed Are "The Length Of Delay, The Reasons For Such Delay, The Assertion Or Failure To Assert Such Right By The Accused, And The Prejudice Caused By The Delay."[67] | |||||