345.

Flores vs. People, 61 SCRA 331, December 10, 1974

FACTS:

Petitioners, Francisco Flores and Francisco Angel, were accused for robbery. Information was filed in
December 1951. They were found guilty of the crime charged in November 1955. Notice of appeal was
file in December 1955. It was until February 1958 that action was taken by CA—a resolution remanding
the records of the case to the lower court for a rehearing of the testimony of a certain witness deemed
material for the disposition of the case. Such resolution was amended dated August 1959 which granted
the petitioners to set aside the decision so that evidence for the defense on new facts may be received
and a new decision in lieu of the old one may be rendered. The case was returned to the lower court
but nothing was done for about a year because the offended party failed to appear despite the 6/7
dates set for such hearing. Furthermore, when the offended party took the witness stand, his testimony
was characterized as a mere fiasco as he could no longer remember the details of the alleged crime and
even failed to identify the 2 accused.

The trial court instead of rendering a decision sent back the records to the appellate tribunal. 5 more
years elapsed without anything being done, petitioners sought dismissal of the case against them due to
inordinate delay in the disposition (from December 1955- May 1965). CA was unresponsive
notwithstanding the vigorous plea of the petitioners, its last order being a denial of a second MR dated
January 1966. CA’s defense is that the case was not properly captioned as “People of the Philippines”
and without “Court of Appeals” being made a party to the petition.

ISSUE: WON constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.

HELD: YES. Petition for certiorari was granted. Orders denying Motion to dismiss as Motion to
Reconsideration are set aside and nullified. Criminal Case against petitioners was dismissed.

Constitutional right to a speedy trial means one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.
An accused is entitled to a trial at the earliest opportunity. He cannot be oppressed by delaying the
commencement of the trial for an unreasonable length of time. The Constitution does not say that such
right may be availed only where the prosecution of a crime is commenced and undertaken by the fiscal.
It does not exclude from its operation cases commenced by private individuals. “Where a person is
prosecuted criminally, he is entitled to a speedy trial, irrespective of the nature of the offense or the
manner in which it is authorized to be commenced”.

Technicalities should give way to the realities of the situation. There should not be too much
significance attached to the procedural defect (refer to CA’s defense). CA failed to accord respect to this
particular constitutional right amounting at the very least to a grave abuse of discretion.
346.

Abadia v CA; G.R. No. 105597; 23 Sep 1994; 236 SCRA 676

FACTS:

Private respondent was arrested in connection with a coup attempt and was detained for months
without charges. After a charge sheet was filed against him for violations of the Articles of War, he filed
a petition for habeas corpus which was dismissed on the ground that a pre-trial investigation was
already ongoing. Despite finding no evidence of his direct participation in the coup, the Pre-Trial
Investigative Panel recommended that he be charged with conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion
or insurrection. He remained in detention despite all existing charges against him were later dismissed.

ISSUE(S):

Whether or no private respondent, a military officer, is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.

RULING:

YES. The constitutional rights of the accused are clearly available to all citizens even in the absence of
statutory enactment. They cannot be denied to certain individuals because of gaps in the alw for which
they are not responsible. They cannot be taken away from certain individuals because of the nature of
their vocation. Members of the military establishment do not waive individual rights on taking up
military uniform. That they become subject to uniquely military rules and procedures does not imply
that they agree to exclusively fall under the jurisdiction of only those rules and regulations and opt to
stand apart from those rules which govern all of the country’s citizens.

Petition is DENIED.