Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MERCED TY-DAZO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 195032 2013-02-20	ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
The bare allegation that it took the OMB more than two (2) years to terminate the investigation and file the necessary information would not suffice.[44] As earlier stated, mere mathematical reckoning of the time spent for the investigation is not a sufficient basis to conclude that there was arbitrary and inordinate delay.
	GR No. 166606 2005-11-29	GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON v. FIRST DIVISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved, therefore, would not be sufficient. In the application of the constitutional guarantee of the right to speedy disposition of cases, particular regard must also be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.[4]
	GR NO. 142762 2005-03-04	LILANY YULO Y BILLONES v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial,[7] is deemed violated only 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.[8] To determine whether the right has been violated, the following factors may be considered: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for such delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay.[9]
	GR Nos. 146368-69 2004-10-18	MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG v. SANDIGANBAYAN QUISUMBING, J.
The right to speedy disposition of cases, like the right to speedy trial, is violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.[4] In the determination of whether said right has been violated, particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.[5] The conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant, the length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay are the factors to consider and balance.[6] A mere mathematical reckoning of time involved would not be sufficient.[7]