This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-08-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, we have consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. This oft-repeated adage requires the expeditious resolution of disputes, much more so in criminal cases where an accused is constitutionally guaranteed the right to a speedy trial, which, as defined, is one "[c]onducted according to the law of criminal procedure and the rules and regulations, free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays." The primordial purpose of this constitutional right is to prevent the oppression of the accused by delaying criminal prosecution for an indefinite period of time. It is likewise intended to prevent delays in the administration of justice by requiring judicial tribunals to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal prosecutions.[29] | |||||
|
2007-03-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| There is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. It is gross misconduct, even disrespect to the highest Court of the land, for a respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint.[9] Indifference or defiance to this Court's orders or resolutions is punishable with dismissal, suspension, or fine as warranted by the circumstances.[10] | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J |
||||
| A resolution of the Supreme Court is not be construed as a mere request nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. [24] | |||||