Right to Speedy Trial
Dante T. Tan, petitioner vs. People of the Philippines, respondents
Facts:
The Panel of Prosecutors of the Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the People of the Philippines (people),
filed three informations against, the petitioner, Dante Tan, which involved the alleged failure of petitioner to file
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a sworn statement of his beneficial ownership of BW
shares.
Petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charges.
On 2 December 2003, petitioner moved to dismiss Criminal Case No. 119830 due to the Peoples alleged failure
to prosecute.
Claiming violation of his right to speedy trial, petitioner faults the People for failing to prosecute the case for an
unreasonable length of time and without giving any excuse or justification for the delay.
According to the petitioner, he was persistent in asserting his right to speedy trial, which he had allegedly done
on several instances.
Finally, he claimed to have been substantially prejudiced by this delay.
Regional Trial Court
The Regional Trial Court ruled that the delays which attended the proceeding s of petitioners case (Criminal
Case No. 119830) were vexatious, capricious and oppressive, resulting in violation of petitioners right to speedy
trial.
Thus, dismissing Criminal Case No. 119830.
Court of Appeals
The Court of appeals reinstated Criminal Case No. 119830 and the trial court is ordered to conduct further
proceedings in said case immediately.
Petitioner Dante filed the instant petition for review on certiorari
Issue: Whether or not Criminal Case No. 119830 was correctly dismissed by the trial court on the ground of violation
of Tans right to speedy trial
Held: NO.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
An accuseds right to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial is guaranteed in criminal cases by Section 14(2)
of Article III of the Constitution.
This right to a speedy trial may be defined as one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, its
salutary objective being to assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of a court
litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the
presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose.
In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the case and to a
speedy trial, four factors must be considered:
a.
b.
c.
d.
LENGTH of delay;
REASON for the delay;
ASSERTION of the right or failure to assert it; and
PREJUDICE caused by such delay.
No evidence was presented for Criminal Case No. 119830 for a period of almost two years and eight months.
In the cases involving the petitioner, the length of delay, complexity of the issues and his failure to invoke said
right to speedy trial at the appropriate time tolled the death knell on his claim to the constitutional guarantee.
More importantly, in failing to interpose a timely objection to the prosecutions manifestation during the
preliminary hearings that the cases be tried separately, one after the other, petitioner was deemed to have
acquiesced and waived his objection thereto.
Other issues: Double Jeopardy-cannot be invoked because the element (d) he was convicted or acquitted or
the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused, is not
applicable since it was held that the instant case be remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City for further
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 119830 with reasonable dispatch.
Double jeopardy does not apply to this case, considering there is no violation of petitioners right to speedy trial.
