A CASE STUDY ON HOW THE INSUFFICIENCY OF LAWYERS AND

PROSECUTORS AFFECTS SPEEDY TRIAL

COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY

ST. PETER’S COLLEGE

Sabayle Street, Iligan City

MARTINEZ, IVEN LESTER B.

SISTUAL, EDZEL M.

TOMONDOG, JOHAIVER G.

VILLANUEVA, PRECIOUS JEL M.

VILLAVER JR., ALFREDO P.

April 01, 2022

A Case Study on How the Insufficiency of Lawyers and Prosecutors Affects
Speedy Trial

A Case Study
Proposal Presented to
Bachelor of Science in Criminology
In Iligan City, Philippines

A Case Study
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Criminology
SY 2021-2022

Martinez, Iven Lester B.

Sistual, Edzel M.

Tomondog, Johaiver G.

Villanueva, Precious Jel M.

Villaver Jr., Alfredo P.

April 01, 2022

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ….................................................................................................

II. Speedy Trial Act ….........................................................................................

III. Insufficiency of Lawyers and Prosecutors and Its Effect ……………………...

IV. Findings...........................................................................................................

V. Conclusions …................................................................................................

VI. Recommendations...........................................................................................

VII. References......................................................................................................
Introduction

The criminal justice system, essentially, is the system or process in the

community by which crimes are investigated, and the persons suspected thereof are

taken into custody, prosecuted in court and punished, if found guilty, provisions being

made for their correction and rehabilitation. With this, the right to Speedy Trial is a

concept which deals with disposal of cases as soon as possible so as to make the

judiciary more efficient and trustworthy. The main aim of Right to Speedy Trial is to

inculcate justice in the society. It is the human life that necessitates human rights. Being

in a civilized society organized with law and a system as such, it is essential to ensure

for every citizen a reasonably dignified life. Thus, every right is a human right as that

helps a human to live like a human being. The very basic purpose for which every state

machinery sets up the court system is to award justice to the victims of crimes.

The right to a speedy trial is first mentioned in that landmark document of English

law, the Magna Carta. Article 21 declares that “no person shall be deprived of his life or

personal liberty except according to the procedure laid by law.” Justice Krishna Iyer

while dealing with the bail petition in Babu Singh v. State of UP1, remarked, "Our justice

system even in grave cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to 'fair

trial' whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice

since the community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly and

finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved from the

inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings."

 Most people understand that those facing criminal accusations have a

constitutional right to a speedy trial. However, this does not mean that there will never

be a delay in a criminal case. There are several factors wherein the insufficiency of

lawyers, prosecutors, and even judges in court is one of those that greatly affect the

speedy trial in the Philippines. The following shows the factors for pendency of the

cases or other factors that affects the delay of speedy trial:

Factors for Pendency of the Cases:

Delay in cases can be of two types:

1. Court system delay:

The delay from the time the case is admitted to the time it is taken up in trail.
2. Delay due to lawyers/ advocates and others:
This is the delay which takes place due the actions of lawyers or advocates
such as adjournments given, etc. Population ratio: presently taking into
consideration the population of the country and pendency of the cases, the
numbers of lawyers available are very less.

Speedy Trial Act

On February12, 1998, Congress passed Republic Act No.8493 or the Speedy

Trial Act of1998. In turn, the Supreme Court promulgated SC Circular No.38-98 dated
September 15, 1998 to implement the law. One of the most important provisions of the
law is that it provides for specific time limits for every stage of the criminal case. The law
expressly provides that thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over
the person of the accused, both arraignment and pre-trial must already be conducted.
Further, the law provides that the entire trial period should not exceed 180 days. Lastly,
the law demands that trial courts 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.
 While the law specifically mandates reduction or the removal of delay in the
conduct of criminal cases, it also acknowledges that not all forms of delay are abhorrent
and unacceptable. The law recognizes that there are reasonable and unexpected
delays that should not be included in computation of the 180 day limit. These excusable
delays are:

(a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the
accused, including but not limited to the following:
(1) delay resulting from an examination of the accused, and hearing on
his/her mental competency, or physical incapacity;
(2) delay resulting from trials with respect to charges against the accused;
(3) delay resulting from interlocutory appeals;
(4) delay resulting from hearings on pre-trial motions: Provided, that the
delay does not exceed thirty (30) days;
(5) delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or proceedings relating to
change of venue of cases or transfer from other courts;
(6) delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a valid prejudicial
question; and
(7) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30)
days, during which any proceeding concerning the accused is actually
under advisement.
(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of the
accused or an essential witness.
(c) Any period of delay resulting from the fact that the accused is mentally
incompetent or physically unable to stand trial.
(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter
a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, or any offense
required to be joined with that offense, any period of delay from the date the
charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run
as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous charge.
(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co-
accused over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or as to whom
 the time for trial has not run and no motion for severance has been granted.
(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any justice or
judge motu propio or on motion of the accused or his/her counselor at the
request of the public prosecutor, if the justice or judge granted such
continuance on the basis of his/ her findings that the ends of justice served
by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the
defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a
continuance granted by the court in accordance with this subparagraph shall
be excludable under this section unless the court sets forth, in the record of
the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of
justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best
interests of the public and the accused in a speedy trial.

The Honorable Chief Justice, Andres Narvasa, in his handbook on courts, cited
the following causes for case delay, namely:

a) an increase in the number of cases filed over the years due to the
heightened awareness of people of their rights and privileges, the enactment
of new laws and rules, as well as increased government actions affecting
private individuals;
b) the lack of courts, and slowness or difficulty in filling up vacancies;
c) the small budget allocated to the judiciary;
d) the complexity of the rules of procedure;
e) the inadequacy or failure in cooperation of court-related agencies and
officers.
There are currently around 40,000 lawyers on the rolls of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines as of 2016, according to Jemy Gatdula of the University of Asia and the
Pacific. For a population of 100 million, 40,000 do not seem like a large number.
Gatdula mentions that there is one lawyer for every 2,500 Filipinos, but even then
people still complain that there are too many lawyers in the Philippines.
Findings

Due to the existence of police brutality, people’s trusts towards our law

enforcement officers have been greatly affected. It’s undeniable that the law

enforcement officers are given the power by the Chief Executive to carry service

firearms and inflict excessive force towards offenders who resist and attack them that

might risk the safety of our police officers. However, there are lots of cases being

reported and even un-reported on media about police brutality.

At its worst, unlawful use of force by police can result in people being deprived of

their right to life. If police force is unnecessary or excessive, it may also amount to

brutality or other ill-treatment. It is undeniable that police brutality usually is present

during arrests of suspects, custody, and even for personal matters. There are strict

international laws and standards governing how and when police can use force,

particularly lethal force. Although there are sets of domestic norms governing police use

of force that generally comply with international law in the Philippine country, there is

still a widespread impunity for violations.

Based on the Philippine latest data being presented above, the highest reported

alleged police brutality cases received by the Commission on Human Rights per region

since the year 2001 up until July 2014 was the National Capital Region (Metro Manila)

with a total number of 89 cases. On the other hand, Region II – Cagayan Valley has the

lowest reported alleged police brutality cases received by the Commission on Human

Rights with a total of only 9 cases. Focusing on Region X – Northern Mindanao, there
are only a total of 19 cases reported on the alleged police brutality cases received by

the Commission on Human Rights since the year 2001 up until July 2014.

Conclusion

Under international law, police officers should only ever use lethal force as a last

resort. This means when such force is strictly necessary to protect themselves or others

from the imminent threat of death or serious injury, and only when other options for de-

escalation are insufficient. Many killings by the police that we have seen around the

world clearly do not meet these criteria. There are still police officers who are brutal to

the public which make the public fear them. Impunity for killings by police often leads to

a deadly cycle of violence. It’s hard to get reliable figures on killings by police because

many governments do not collect or publish this data.

Nobody is above the law, most especially those who have a duty to uphold it.

Amnesty has documented how police officers who unlawfully kill or injure people often

get away with it. There are lots of reasons why this happens. In some cases, police and

security forces threaten the judiciary, witnesses or survivors, pressuring them to drop

charges. Other times, there are laws enacted to provide the police with immunity or

otherwise obstruct justice, even if they act against the law. This particular issue cannot

be easily eradicated probably because of some unjustifiable reasons. There are these

high rank police officials who provide protection towards their subordinates just to give

immunity to the crime these police officers committed. That is the very reason why all

cases of police use of lethal force should be subject to a thorough, independent,

impartial and transparent investigation. However, if the evidence indicates that the

killing was unlawful, the police officer responsible should be criminally prosecuted.
 Every country has its own domestic laws and there is no one-size-fits-all

prescription for making them fairer and safer. Therefore, there must be a quick

response or action and even a strict implementation of laws against these police

brutality cases. If the public could see and attest that there is a positive change in

responding and giving corresponding action to such cases about police brutality, their

trust towards the police officers might slowly be regained.

It is vital for officers who are guilty of wrongdoing to be held accountable for their

actions. Police officers are entitled to and do receive significant deference under the law

when they use force, but just as important are our constitutional rights to be free from

unreasonable uses of force. This important balance can only be maintained if officers

who use excessive force in violation of the constitution are held to account. No matter

the situation, we stand with those who face police brutality. Police administrators must

note that public trust is influenced by police effectiveness; hence absence of trust can

hugely undermine the success of police organizations. High trust in the police

undoubtedly leads to police legitimacy and voluntary public cooperation with the police.
Recommendations

1. Police officers are entitled to and do receive significant deference under the

law when they use force, but just as important are our constitutional rights to be

free from unreasonable uses of force.

2. Diversity in the workforce, race relations, and serving the underrepresented are

issues that need to be tackled head on. Mental health and homelessness are

two important social conditions that need to be addressed by the entire

community, not just by the police, whose expertise and resources are not

designed to serve these groups or address these issues.

3. In order to reduce the use of excessive and deadly force, it is important to

improve the relationships between the police department and the community.

Government must establish or make a specific statutory law intended for police

brutality in order to promote the importance of police community relation. Hence, this

would also aid and help to make the duty of law enforcers easier including the

deterrence of the future criminals in committing heinous crime.

Reference