This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-02-01 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| As illustrated in our ruling in Abardo v. Sandiganbayan, the unexplained interval or inactivity of the Sandiganbayan for close to five years since the arraignment of the accused amounts to an unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases - a clear violation of the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of cases.[67] Thus, we held: The delay in this case measures up to the unreasonableness of the delay in the disposition of cases in Angchangco, Jr. vs. Ombudsman, where the Court found the delay of six years by the Ombudsman in resolving the criminal complaints to be violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy disposition of cases; similarly, in Roque vs. Office of the Ombudsman, where the Court held that the delay of almost six years disregarded the Ombudsman's duty to act promptly on complaints before him; and in Cervantes vs. Sandiganbayan, where the Court held that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in not quashing the information which was filed six years after the initiatory complaint was filed and thereby depriving petitioner of his right to a speedy disposition of the case. So it must be in the instant case, where the reinvestigation by the Ombudsman has dragged on for a decade already.[68] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2009-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Exhaustively explained in Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, an accused's right to speedy trial is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. In determining whether petitioner was deprived of this right, the factors to consider and balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such delay.[27] | |||||
|
2005-11-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We further explained that in determining whether the constitutional right to speedy trial of petitioners has been violated, the factors to consider and balance are the duration of the delay, reason therefor, assertion of the right or failure to assert it and the prejudice caused by such delay.[6] | |||||
|
2001-09-06 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Verily, the delay in this case disregarded the Ombudsman's duty, as mandated by the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770, to enforce the criminal liability of government officers or employees in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service to the people.[13] The failure of said office to resolve the complaints that have been pending for almost four years is clearly violative of this mandate and the rights of petitioner as a public official. In such event, petitioner is entitled to the dismissal of the cases filed against him. | |||||