This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Third, Roallos failed to substantiate his claim that his right to speedy trial was violated. The right to speedy trial is violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. In the determination of whether said right has been violated, particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. The conduct of both the prosecution and defendant, the length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay are the factors to consider and balance.[24] In order for the government to sustain its right to try the accused despite a delay, it must show two things: first, that the accused suffered no serious prejudice beyond that which ensued from the ordinary and inevitable delay; and second, that there was no more delay that is reasonably attributable to the ordinary processes of justice.[25] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| But now comes the State contending that the delay in the resolution of the case against the respondents was neither inordinate nor solely attributable to the Office of the Ombudsman. Citing Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan,[87] in which the Court held that speedy disposition of cases was also consistent with reasonable delays, the State supported its contention by listing the various incidents that had caused the delay in the investigation, and then laying part of the blame on the respondents themselves. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The right to speedy disposition of cases, like the right to speedy trial, is violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. In the determination of whether said right has been violated, particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. The conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant, the length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay are the factors to consider and balance. A mere mathematical reckoning of time involved would not be sufficient.[14] | |||||
|
2008-02-12 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Once more, in Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan,[58] this Court reiterated that the right to speedy disposition of cases, like the right to speedy trial, is violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.[59] In the determination of whether said right has been violated, particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.[60] The conduct of both the prosecution and defendant, the length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay are the factors to consider and balance.[61] | |||||