Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LUIS TAMPAL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 151258 2012-02-01	ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
The right of the accused to a speedy trial has been enshrined in Sections 14(2) and 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.[52] This right requires that there be a trial free from vexatious, capricious or oppressive delays.[53] The right is deemed violated when the proceeding is attended with unjustified postponements of trial, or when a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the case being tried and for no cause or justifiable motive.[54] In determining the right of the accused to speedy trial, courts should do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case.[55] The conduct of both the prosecution and the defense must be weighed.[56] Also to be considered are factors such as the length of delay, the assertion or non-assertion of the right, and the prejudice wrought upon the defendant.[57]
	GR No. 167710 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO PERALTA, J.
Double jeopardy has the following essential elements: (1) the accused is charged under a complaint or an information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and he has pleaded; and (4) he is convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his express consent.[56]
	GR NO. 165996 2005-10-17	RODOLFO G. VALENCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As significant as the right of an accused to a speedy trial is the right of the State to prosecute people who violate its penal laws.[34] The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.[35] In the instant case, allowing the prosecution to present additional evidence, is a lawful exercise of due process and is certainly not intended to vex or oppress the petitioner. In the balancing test used to determine whether an accused had been denied speedy disposition of cases, the scales tilt in favor of allowing the prosecution to adduce further evidence. Slowly but surely, justice and due process would be afforded to the prosecution and to petitioner as well who would have the chance to present counter evidence. On the other hand, to erroneously put premium on the right to speedy trial in the instant case and deny the prosecution's prayer to adduce additional evidence would logically result in the dismissal of the case for the State. There is no difference between an order outrightly dismissing the case and an order allowing the eventual dismissal thereof. Both would set a dangerous precedent which enables the accused, who may be guilty, to go free without having been validly tried, thereby infringing the interest of the society.
	GR Nos. 140546-47 2003-01-20	PEOPLE v. MODESTO TEE QUISUMBING, J.
The Speedy Trial Act of 1998, provides that the trial period for criminal cases in general shall be one hundred eighty (180) days.[75] However, in determining the right of an accused to speedy trial, courts should do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case.[76] The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when: (1) the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays;[77] or (2) when unjustified postponements are asked for and secured;[78] or (3) when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.[79]