The RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL AS APPLIED IN THE
CASE OF Dante T. Tan vs. People of Philippines
& Other Supreme Court Cases on Speedy Trial 1
By : Atty. Antonio A. Ligon, CPA 2
I. Introduction
The right to a speedy trial is an ancient liberty. During the reign of HENRY II (1154–
1189), the English Crown promulgated the Assize of Clarendon, a legal code comprised
of 22 articles, one of which promised speedy justice to all litigants. In 1215 the Magna
Charta prohibited the king from delaying justice to any person in the realm.
The right to a speedy trial does not apply to every stage of a criminal case. It arises
only after a person has been arrested, indicted, or otherwise formally accused of a crime
by the government. Before the point of formal accusation, the government is under no
obligation to investigate, accuse, or prosecute a defendant within a specific amount of
time. Nor does the Speedy Trial Clause apply to post-trial criminal proceedings, such
as Probation and Parole hearings. If the government drops criminal charges during the
middle of a case, the Speedy Trial Clause does not apply unless the government later
refiles the charges, at which point the length of delay is measured only from the time of
refiling. However, the fairness requirements of the Due Process Clause apply during each
juncture of a criminal case, and an unreasonably excessive delay can be challenged under
1
This Paper was delivered before Business Law students, DLSU Graduate School of Business and will
be submitted to the Lawyer’s Review for publication
2
The author is a practicing lawyer, managing partner of Ligon Solis Mejia Florendo & Cruz Law Firm .
He Finished Public Sector Negotiation program in JFK School of Government in 2002. He served as
Provincial Board Member of Bulacan from 2001 to 2004 and the IBP National office as Executive Director
in 1990 . He is a professor of Commercial laws in De La Salle University
1|Page
this constitutional provision even if the delay occurs before formal accusation or after
conviction.
In the Philippine setting our organic and criminal laws expressly guarantee that in
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to speedy trial. A speedy
trial is a trial conducted according to the law on criminal procedure and the rules and
regulations, free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. It can be one which
may be had as soon after indictment as the prosecution can with reasonable diligence
prepare for trial.
And such trial is denied an accused person where through the
vacillation and procrastination of prosecuting officers, the accused is forced to wait
many months or years for trial.3
The primordial purpose of this constitutional right is to prevent the oppression of
an accused by delaying criminal prosecution for an indefinite period of time. The right of
an accused to speedy trial is not violated by mere postponement of scheduled hearings of
the case. Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of
time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial. The right to speedy trial
allows reasonable continuance so as not to deprive the prosecution its day in court.
II BACKGROUND OF THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides in Section 14 (2) of Article III, Bill
of Rights:
3
QUE VS. COSICO; PEOPLE VS. MARTELINO , G.R. No. 81861, September 8, 1989, 177 SCRA 410
2|Page
“ In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.”
It would appear historically, that the right to speedy trial provision have been
patterned from 6th Amendment of the US Constitution, as the Philippine was US territory
under December 10, 1898 to March 24, 1934. The Malolos Constitution, which was
drafted in 1899 by Revolutionary Government following its independence from Spain has
the earliest pronouncement on the right to speedy trial.
Article 8, Title IV of the
Malolos Constitution provides:
“All persons detained shall be discharged of
delivered to the judicial authority within twenty four (24)
hours following the act of detention. All detentions without
the legal effect, unless the arrested person is duly
3|Page
prosecuted within seventy two (72) hours after delivery to a
competent court.
The accused shall be duly notified of such
proceeding within the same period.”
Rule 115, Section 1(h) and Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Procedure, in
relation to The Speedy Trial Act of R.A. 8493 (promulgated February 12, 1998) and
Supreme Court Circular 38-98, Implementing Guidelines of RA 8489 (August 11, 1998)
gave life to the spirit of the Right to Speedy Trial provided in Section 14 (2) of Article
III the 1987 Philippine constitution.
The right to speedy trial is a privilege of the accused. If he does not claim it he
should not complain. The spirit of the law is that the accused must go on record in the
attitude of demanding a trial or resisting delay if he does not do this , he must be deemed,
to have waived the privilege.
In the most recent case of Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc.
(COCOFED), et al. vs. Republic of the Philippines; Wigberto E. Tanada, et al.,
intervenors; Danilo S. Ursua vs. Republic of the Philippines4, the Supreme Court
reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is available only to an accused and is a peculiarly
criminal law concept, while the broader right to a speedy disposition of cases may be
tapped in any proceedings conducted by state agencies. In this case, the appropriate right
4
G.R. Nos. 177857-58 & G.R. No. 178193, January 24, 2012.
4|Page
involved is the right to a speedy disposition of cases, the recovery of ill-gotten wealth
being a civil suit. An examination of the petitioners’ arguments and the cited indicia of
delay would reveal the absence of any allegation that petitioners moved before the
Sandiganbayan for the dismissal of the case on account of vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays that attended the proceedings. Petitioners are deemed to have waived
their right to a speedy disposition of the case. Moreover, delays, if any, prejudiced the
Republic as well. What is more, the alleged breach of the right in question was not raised
below. As a matter of settled jurisprudence, but subject to equally settled exception, an
issue not raised before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
This paper will focused on the decision by the Supreme Court on Dante V. Tan
vs. People of the Philippines in view of the importance of the doctrines cited therein such
as the definition of the right to speedy trial, the inquiry as to whether or not an accused
has been denied such right is not susceptible by precise qualification; and when is the
proper time to invoke the right to speedy trial
III
The Case of Dante T. Tan Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No.
173637, April 21, 2009
a. SUMMARY OF FACTS
On 19 December 2000, Dante Tan, along with other persons, was charged for his alleged
participation in employing manipulative devises in the purchases o Best World Resources
Corporation (BW) shares. Tan was arraigned on 16 January 2001, and pleaded not guilty
5|Page
to the charges. On 6 February 2001, the pre-trial was concluded, and a pre-trial order
set, among other things, the first date of trial on 27 February 2001.
On 2 December
2003, Tan moved to dismiss the criminal case against him due to the prosecution’s
alleged failure to prosecute. Claiming violation of his right to speedy trial, Tan faults the
prosecution for failing to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time and
without giving any excuse or justification for the delay. According to Tan, 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.
b. ISSUE(S):
(1) Whether or not there is a violation of the right to speedy trial of petitioner Dante
V. Tan
(2) When to envoke the right to speedy trial
c.
DISCUSSION / DECISION
The Supreme Court, in ruling that there was no sufficient ground to conclude that the
prosecution is guilty of violating Tan’s right to speedy trial, found that:
“ An accused’s right to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, is guaranteed in
criminal cases bu Section 14(2) of the Article III of the Constitution. The right to speedy
trial may be defined as one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays ,in
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
6|Page
whatosoever legitimate defense he may interpose. Intimating historical perspective on the
evolution of the righ to speedy trial , we reiterate the old legl maxim, “ 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 speedy trial”5
Following the policies incorporated under the 1987 Constitution,Republic Act no.
8493, otherwise known as “The Speedy Trial Act of 1988” with aSection 6 of said Act
limiting the trial period to 180 days from the first day of trial.”6 Aware of the problems
resulting in the clogging of court dockets, the Court implemented the law by issuing
Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98, which has been incorporated in the 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Section 2 of Rule 119.7
The Supreme Court in deciding against Tan relied on the following cases :
5
Page151-152, of Volume 158 of SCRA , Tan vs. People , G.R. No. 173637
SECTION 6. Time limit for trial. — In criminal cases involving persons charged of a crime, except those
subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure, or where the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed six
(6) months imprisonment, or a fine of One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or both, irrespective of other
imposable penalties, the justice or judge shall, after consultation with the public prosecutor and the
counsel for the accused, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at
the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one
hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 3, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.
6
7
Sec. 2. Continuous trial until terminated; postponements. – Trial once commenced shall continue from
day to day as far as practicable until terminated. It may be postponed for a reasonable period of time for
good cause. The court shall, after consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel, set the case for
continuous trail on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ensure
speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first
day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court.
The time limitations provided under this section and the preceding section shall not apply where special
laws or circulars of the Supreme Court provide for a shorter period of trial.
7|Page
Corpuz v. Sandiganbagayan8:
“ The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the case
against him was designed to prevent the oppression for an indefinite time, and to prevent
delays in the adminination of justice by mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable
dispatch in the trial of criminal cases. Such right to speedy trial and a speedy disposition
of a case is violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays. The inquiry as to whether or notis not an accused has been denied
such right is not susceptible by precise qualification. The concept of speedy disposition is
a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.
While justice is administered with dispatch, the essential ingredient is orderly,
expeditious and not mere speed. It cannot be definitely said how long is too long in a
system where justice is supposed tobe swift, but deliberate. It is consistent with delays
and depends upon circumstances. It secures the rights to the accused , but it does not
preclude the rights of public justice. Also it must be borne in mind that the rights given to
the accused by the Consititution and the Rules of Court are shields, not weaposn ; hence,
court are to give meaning to that intent.”9
The Court also applied the factors and the balance to consider which was used by
the Supreme Court in the People of the Philippines vs. Hernandez10: In the said case the
court said” A balancing test of applying societal interests and the rights of the accused
necessarily compels the court to approach speedy trial case on an ad hoc basis. In
determining whether the accused has been deprived of his rights to a speedy disposition
of the case and to speedy trial , four factors must be considered11:
(a) length of delay
8
G.R. NO. 162214, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRAS 294, 312-313
G.R. NO. 162214, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRAS 294, 312-313
10
G.R. Nos.154218 & 154372 499 SCRA 688, August 28, 2006,
9
11
BARKER VS. WINGO 407 US 514, 92 S.Ct.2182 (1972)
8|Page
(b) reason for delay
(c) defendant’s assertion of the right
(d) prejudice to the defendant
In Tan case, the court reiterated the doctrine stated in Santiago vs.
Garchitorena12t “In determining the right of an accused to speedy trial, courts are
required to do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of
the scheduled hearings of the case. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved
is clearly insufficient, and particular regard must be given to the facts and circumstances
peculiar to each case.” Tan’s objection to the prosecution’s stand that he gave an implied
consent to the separate trial of Criminal Case No. 119830 is belied by the records of the
case. No objection was interposed by his defense counsel when this matter was discussed
during the initial hearing. Tan’s conformity thereto can be deduced from his nonobjection at the preliminary hearing when the prosecution manifested that the evidence to
be presented would be only for Criminal Cases No. 119831-119832. His failure to object
to the prosecution’s manifestation that the cases be tried separately is fatal to his case.
The acts, mistakes and negligence of counsel bind his client, except only when such
mistakes would result in serious injustice.
The Court added citing Solar Team Entertainment Inc. vs. Judge How
13
that
"Moreover, although periods for trial have been stipulated, these periods are not
absolute. Where periods have been set, certain exclusions are allowed by law. After all,
this Court and the law recognize that it is but a fact that judicial proceedings do not exist
12
13
G.R. No. 109266, 2 December 1993, 228 SCRA 214, 221
393 Phil 172, 184; 338 SCRA 511 (2000)
9|Page
in a vacuum and must contend with the realities of everyday life. In spite of the
prescribed time limits, jurisprudence continues to adopt the view that the fundamentally
recognized principle is that the concept of speedy trial is a relative term and must
necessarily be a flexible concept”14.
"As to the assertion that delay in the presentation of evidence for Criminal Case No.
119830 has prejudiced Tan because the witnesses for the defense may no longer be
available at this time, suffice it to say that the burden of proving his guilt rests upon the
prosecution. Should the prosecution fail for any reason to present evidence sufficient to
show his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Tan will be acquitted. It is safely entrenched in
our jurisprudence that unless the prosecution discharges its burden to prove the guilt of an
accused beyond reasonable doubt, the latter need not even offer evidence in his behalf.
"In the cases involving Tan, 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 prosecution’s manifestation during the preliminary hearings that the
cases be tried separately, one after the other, Tan was deemed to have acquiesced and
waived his objection thereto.
"The old adage that justice delayed is justice denied has never been more valid than in
our jurisdiction, where it is not a rarity for a case to drag in our courts for years and years
and even decades. It was this difficulty that inspired the constitutional requirement that
the rules of court to be promulgated by the Supreme Court shall provide for a simplified
14
Id
10 | P a g e
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy trial and disposition of cases. Indeed, for
justice to prevail, the scales must balance, for justice is not to be dispensed for the
accused alone."15
IV Relevance of Tan vs. People vis-à-vis Other cases in Speedy Trial
The case of Tan vs. People is unlike the Lumanlaw vs. Peralta, Jr.16 wherer the
Court ruled “Given the length and the unreasonableness of the majority of the delays, a
violation of the right of petitioner speedy trial becomes manifest. Almost two years
elapsed from the filing of the information against him until the filing of this Petition;
incredibly he has not been arraigned. An arraignment takes, at the most ten minutes of the
court’s business and does not normally entail legal gymnastics. In the Tan case, the
accused was arraigned right after an information was filed.
As observed in the
Lumalaw case, where there are unwarranted delays in the conduct of the arraignment of
an accused, he has the right to demand, -- through the writ of mandamus—expeditious
action from all officials tasks with the administration of justice –he may not only demand
that his arraignment be held but, ultimately that the information against him be dismissed
on the ground of the violation of his right to speedy trial. The protection of people’s civil
liberties overwhelmes all of procedure.
15
16
Justice Isagani Cruz, Philippine political Law, p. 292
February 13, 2006 G.R.No. 16495482 SCRA 396
11 | P a g e
In deciding the case of Tan vs. People , the court is mindful of the doctrine
enunciated in
Uy vs. Adriano17 which defined Speedy trial” as a relative term and
necessary a flexible concept. In determining whether the right of the accused to a speedy
trial was violated, the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the
proceedings. Indeed, mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not
suffice as the realities of everyday life must be regarded in judicial proceedings which,
after all , do not exist in a vacuum.
The passage of time
alone, without a significant deprivation of liberty or
impairment of ability to properly defend oneself, is not absolute evidence of prejudice.
The right to speedy trial is not primarily intended to prevent prejudice to the defense
caused by passage of time; the interest is protected primarily by the due process clause
and the statutes of limitations.
The principle applied by the Court in Churchille v. Mari and the People of the
Philippines vs. Hon. Rolando L. Gonzales et. al18 cannot be made applicable to Tan vs.
People, considering that in the Churchille case, the private respondent had already been
deprived of his liberty on two occasions. First, during the preliminary investigation
17
18
October 27, 2006, G.R. No. 159098 505 SCRA 625
G.R. No. 187728, September 12, 2011
12 | P a g e
before the MCTC, when he was incarcerated from November 18, 2004 to March 16,
2005, or a period of almost four months; then again, when an Information had already
been issued and since rape is a non-bailable offense, he was imprisoned beginning June
27, 2008 until the case was dismissed on January 16, 2009, or a period of over 6
months. Verily, there can be no cavil that deprivation of liberty for any duration of time
is quite oppressive. Because of private respondent's continued incarceration, any delay in
trying the case would cause him great prejudice. Thus, it was absolutely vexatious and
oppressive to delay the trial in the subject criminal case to await the outcome of
petitioners' petition for transfer of venue, especially in this case where there is no
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction issued by a higher court
against herein public respondent from further proceeding in the case.
Hence, the Court does not find any grave abuse of discretion committed by the trial
court in dismissing the case against private respondent for violation of his constitutional
right to speedy trial.
V CONCLUSIONS
Right to speedy trial is a way to prevent prosecutors from substantially delaying a
trial without valid reason and it provides substantial protection to the constitutional right
of the accused.
The prosecution of offenses is a matter of public interest and it is the duty of the
government or those acting in its behalf to prosecute all cases to their determination
without oppressive, capricious and vexatious delay. The Constitution does not say that
13 | P a g e
the right to a speedy trial may be availed of only where the prosecution for crime is
commenced and undertaken by the fiscal. It does not exclude from its operation cases
commenced by private individuals. Where once an accused is prosecuted criminally, he is
entitled to a speedy trial, it is irrespective of the nature of the offense or the manner in
which it is authorized to be commenced.19
The government should be the last to set an example of delay and oppression in
the administration of justice and it is the moral and legal obligation of the court to see
that the criminal proceedings against the accused come to an end that they be
immediately discharged from the custody of the law.20
The ordinary scenario in a courtroom would be a bunch of lawyers trying to
outwit each other during the entire proceeding at the expense of accused’s right to
speedy trial of the case. In this regard, the accused must assert his right to speedy trial of
his case and his failure to invoke the aforesaid right at appropriate time tolled the death
knell on his claim to the constitutional guarantee.21.
As seen in Tan vs. People and in other cited cases, the of the accused to have a
speedy trial is violated not only when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for
and secured, but also when, without good cause or justifiable motive, a long period of
time is allowed to elapse without having his case tried.
The right to speedy trial is not understood to have been waived or abandoned by
the accused when he or his attorney fails to urge the trial of the case. Such a waiver or
19
RECTO VS. AQUINO, 66 Phil 217, 233-234
CONDE VS. RIVERA AND UNSON, 45 Phil 651
21
SANTIAGO VS. GARCHITORENA, G.R. No. 109266, 2 December 1993, 228 SCRA 214, 221.
20
14 | P a g e
abandonment may be presumed only when the postponement of the trial has been
sought and obtained by the accused himself or by his attorney.
The practice of
permitting the promotor fiscal, after filing the informations, to be idle and to allow
criminal cases instituted by him to remain inert in the files of the court for a long or
indefinite period of time and even for years, is a pernicious practice unjust to the accused.
Such practice violates the fundamental right of the accused to have a speedy trial, is
contrary to the public interest, and detrimental to the speedy administration of justice.22
The right of an accused to a speedy trial is not, however, violated by the mere
postponement of scheduled hearings of the case. Unjustified postponements which
prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the
accused to speedy trial.23
----------------------------- 0 -------------------------------------
22
KALAW VS. APOSTOL and ALCAZAR, 64 PHIL 852, DUTERTE VS. SANDIGAN BAYAN,
G.R. 130191, April 27, 1998, 289 SCRA 721, 94 SCAD 161
23
PEOPLE VS. LEVISTE G.R. NO. 104386, March 28, 1996 citing PEOPLE VS. TAMPAL, 244 SCRA 202
15 | P a g e
VI
REFERENCES
Sixth Amendment, The United States Consitution
Malolos Consittution
Section 14 (2) of Article III, Bill of Rights 1987 Consitution of the Philippines
The Speedy Trial Act 0f 1988 , Republic Act No.8493
Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98 [dated August 11, 1998]
[Implementing the Provisions of Republic Act No. 8493,
Entitled "An Act to Ensure a Speedy Trial ofAll Criminal Cases Before the
Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Appropriating Funds
Therefor, and for Other Purposes”
Rule 115, Section 1(h) and Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Procedure, Rules of Court of the
Philippines es
2000 Rules of Criminal procedure , Rules of Court of the Philippi
Feldman, Steven D. 1996. "Twenty-fifth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: Speedy
Trial." Georgetown Law Journal 84 (April).
Dante T. Tan, Petitioner vs. People of the Philippines, 586 SCRA 139
16 | P a g e