This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| With the denial of GMA's motion to be furnished with and examine the documents referred to in Senator Pimentel's complaint, GMA's motion to extend the filing of her counter-affidavit and countervailing evidence was consequently denied. Indeed, considering the nature of the crime for which GMA was subjected to preliminary investigation and the documents attached to the complaint, it is incumbent upon the Joint Committee to afford her ample time to examine the documents submitted to [the Joint Committee] in order that she would be able to prepare her counter-affidavit. She cannot, however, insist to examine documents not in the possession and custody of the Joint Committee nor submitted by the complainants. Otherwise, it might cause undue and unnecessary delay in the disposition of the cases. This undue delay might result in the violation of the right to a speedy disposition of cases as enshrined in Section 16, Article III of the Constitution which states that "all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies." The constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings.[136] Any party to a case has the right to demand on all officials tasked with the administration of justice to expedite its disposition.[137] Society has a particular interest in bringing swift prosecutions, and the society's representatives are the ones who should protect that interest.[138] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Hence, the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure also include provisions that ensure the protection of such right. As we presented in Uy v. Hon. Adriano[14]: Section 1(h), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the accused is entitled to a speedy, impartial and public trial. Section 2, Rule 119 of the said Rules provides that trial, once commenced, shall be continuous until terminated: | |||||
|
2010-09-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In several cases where it was manifest that due process of law or other rights guaranteed by the Constitution or statutes have been denied, this Court has not faltered to accord the so-called "radical relief" to keep accused from enduring the rigors and expense of a full-blown trial.[159] In this case, however, appellants are not entitled to the same relief in the absence of clear and convincing showing that the delay in the resolution of their appeal was unreasonable or arbitrary. | |||||