This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-01-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In The Ombudsman v. Jurado,[21] the Court has clarified that although the Constitution guarantees the right to the speedy disposition of cases, such speedy disposition is a flexible concept. To properly define that concept, the facts and circumstances surrounding each case must be evaluated and taken into account. There occurs a violation of the right to a speedy disposition of a case only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of the trial are sought and secured, or when, without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.[22] It is cogent to mention that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not determinant of the concept.[23] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2012-07-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| No less than our Constitution guarantees the right not just to a speedy trial but to the speedy disposition of cases.[44] However, it needs to be underscored that speedy disposition is a relative and flexible concept. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient. Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.[45] In determining whether or not the right to the speedy disposition of cases has been violated, this Court has laid down the following guidelines: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for such delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay.[46] | |||||
|
2010-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases, but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.[15] | |||||