Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO DELA PEÑA AND v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 164763 2008-02-12	ZENON R. PEREZ v. PEOPLE and SANDIGANBAYAN REYES, R.T., J.
Subsequently, in Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan,[56] this Court again enumerated the factors that should be considered and balanced, namely: (1) length of delay; (2) reasons for the delay; (3) assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4) prejudice caused by the delay.[57]
	GR NO. 131966 2005-08-31	REPUBLIC v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the case of Dela Peña vs. Sandiganbayan,[9] the Court had the occasion to re-state the doctrine that:The concept of speedy disposition is relative or flexible. 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. Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether that right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are as follows: (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.
	GR No. 131966 2004-08-16	REPUBLIC v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The concept of speedy disposition is relative or flexible. 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. Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether that right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are as follows: (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.[10]
	GR No. 145851 2001-11-22	ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. SANDIGANBAYAN PANGANIBAN, J.
In Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan,[29] penned by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., the Court laid down certain guidelines to determine whether the right to a speedy disposition has been violated, as follows:"The concept of speedy disposition is relative or flexible. 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. Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether that right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are as follows: (1) the length of the 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."[30]