This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Reiterating the Court's pronouncement in Solar Team Entertainment, Inc.[27] that "speedy trial" is a relative and flexible term, Lumanlaw v. Peralta, Jr.[28] summons the courts to maintain a delicate balance between the demands of due process and the strictures of speedy trial on the one hand, and the right of the State to prosecute crimes and rid society of criminals on the other. | |||||
|
2009-02-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The right of an accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of the Philippine Constitution which provides: "All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies." This right, however, 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.[32] A simple mathematical computation of the period involved is not sufficient. We concede that judicial proceedings do not exist in a vacuum and must contend with the realities of everyday life.[33] | |||||