Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELIX R. GONZALES v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 188165 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
The constitutional right to a 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.[88] While the concept of speedy disposition is relative or flexible, such that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient,[89] the right to the speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for 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.[90]
	GR No. 164763 2008-02-12	ZENON R. PEREZ v. PEOPLE and SANDIGANBAYAN REYES, R.T., J.
In 1991, in Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan,[55] this Court ruled:It must be here emphasized that the right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for 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. Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed, and such factors as length of the delay, reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay, are considered. (Underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 166606 2005-11-29	GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON v. FIRST DIVISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan,[5] the Court emphasized that:... [T]he right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for 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. Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed, and such factors as length of the delay, reason for the delay, the defendantï¿½s assertion or non-assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay, are considered.
	GR Nos. 146368-69 2004-10-18	MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG v. SANDIGANBAYAN QUISUMBING, J.
Neither could the delay be said to have been prejudicial to her considering that she herself is guilty of delay.[12] The Court has held that if the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation was not solely the prosecution's fault, but was also due to incidents attributable to the accused and his counsel, the right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases is not violated.[13] Petitioner cannot now seek the protection of the law to benefit from what she now considers the adverse effects of her own conduct in this case.