THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF A

CASE: VIOLATED OR NOT?

A Position Paper on Whether the Trial of Criminal Cases in the
Philippines are Unduly Delayed or Not

INTRODUCTION:

One of the most intriguing issues in the Philippines is the

delay in the disposition of the cases, as well as, the trial of an
accused. There are some instances wherein people are either in
uproar or in a relief whenever a judgment is rendered to a certain
accused. It is, in fact, one of the most awaited moments,
especially when it involves an unimaginable crime.

Given this, however, some accused are detained for so long

as they can remember without even having a judgment imposed
upon them. Detention facilities are often cramped up due to this
factor. This begs the question: “Is the right to speedy trial
violated?”

POSITION:

The Constitution provides that an accused shall have the

right to speedy trial. The end of this right is to avoid instances
wherein an accused is detained arbitrarily or more than the
imposable penalty of the offense he has committed. With this,
Congress has enacted certain laws that would amplify such right.
This would include: The Recognizance Law, the Speedy Trial Act
of 1998, as well as, A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC. All for the purpose of
respecting the right of the accused to a speedy trial.

Given this, however, there are still instances wherein some

accused are detained for as long as they can remember. I cannot
say that the right of the accused to speedy trial is violated. The
problem lies in the way where some people would file cases that
are somehow insignificant or may be dealt with with the ordinary
recourse of normal people. It follows then that, due to these, some
cases are often delayed by the fact that prosecutors are given
more workload and that the more significant cases are often left
behind. Thus, although there are laws that amplify the right to
speedy trial, cases are often delayed due to the excessive
workload of the prosecutors involving cases that may be dealt
with in a simpler way; they may even be solved even without the
help of judicial bodies.

Another problem also brings about delays to the trial of

criminal cases. This is the problem of the “probable cause.” When
a complaint is filed by the offended party, the prosecutor has the
duty to determine whether there is a probable cause as to hold the
one complained of for trial. To determine such, he would collect
evidence from the parties, as well as, law enforcement agencies.
If such evidence is sufficient, the prosecutor may hold the
accused for trial.

In trial, the same evidence would also be used to determine

the judgment to be imposed upon the accused. This would also be
a factor in the delay of criminal cases since it would seem that the
accused is presented the same evidence used in the pre-trial. If
the evidence presented would lead to the acquittal of the accused,
then the pre-trial may be considered a waste of time.

CONCLUSION:

The right of the accused to speedy trial is not violated. The

problem lies only in the workload given to prosecutors, and the
determination of probable cause based on the evidence presented
during the pre-trial, the same evidence to be used during the trial.

With this, the Congress may enact a law that would further
strengthen amicable settlements, or mediation, to prevent the
prosecutor from handling cases that would bring about excessive
workload on the part of the prosecutor.

With respect to probable cause used in pre-trial, the

prosecutors must not only rely on probable cause, as this may
cause delay or waste of time, especially in cases wherein an
accused would be acquitted using the same evidence. What the
prosecutors need to detect is a clear and convincing evidence.
This would, at least, lessen the detention of an accused and the
right to speedy trial would be much acknowledged.

Laws are construed in favor of the accused. However, when

there are delays that keep happening, some persons may be
arbitrarily detained for so long, including innocent ones. After all,
it is better to set free a guilty man than to detain an innocent one.
To: Congress of the Philippines; Supreme Court of the Philippines

Prepared by: BERNARDINO, Vince Dave A.

Date: November 25, 2020

Re: Speedy Disposition of Criminal Cases in the Philippines

Question Presented:

Is the right of an accused to speedy trial violated due to the

delays in the pronouncement of judgment in the courts of justice?

Short Answer:

The right of an accused to speedy trial is not violated.

Although it seems that this is violated, the reason for the delays
lies in the workload of the prosecutors handling numerous cases.
Moreover, the problem is also seen in the determination of
probable cause during the pre-trial.

Proposal:

It is therefore proposed that, given the circumstances

involving the speedy trial of an accused, there still seems to be
delays in the disposition of criminal cases in the Philippines, the
Congress may enact a law that would create a mediation program
for cases that may be settled with in ordinary recourse without
having to go to the courts of justice as it would add up to the
workload of prosecutors.

It is also proposed to Congress, as well as to the Supreme

Court, that the “probable caused” used in determining whether an
accused may be held for trial be changed to a “clear and
convincing evidence” so to avoid delays in the disposition of cases
given the fact that the evidence used in determining probable
cause is also that used in determining the guilt of the accused
during the trial. Thus, the need to change it to “clear and
convincing evidence” would help in the speedy disposition of a
case.