This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In ascertaining whether the right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated, the following factors must be considered: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay.[11] The right to a speedy disposition of cases is considered violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays.[12] A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient.[13] In the application of the constitutional guarantee of the right to a speedy disposition of cases, particular regard must also be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.[14] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| To afford the Ombudsman a wide latitude of discretion, the Court, as a general rule, does not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of whether or not there is probable cause against the respondent. The Court only exercises its power of judicial review when the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion such as when he ignores the clear sufficiency of evidence to support a finding of probable cause.[14] | |||||