Remedy when accused is not brought to trial within the prescribed period | Trial (RULE 119) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion under Philippine law regarding the remedy when the accused is not brought to trial within the prescribed period under Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and related statutes and jurisprudence. This includes constitutional underpinnings, statutory bases, pertinent rules, relevant Supreme Court decisions, and procedural guidance on invoking the remedy. I will be as meticulous as possible, focusing on the critical points.

I. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY FOUNDATIONS

  1. Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial

    • Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall... enjoy the right to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial.”
    • The right to speedy trial protects the accused from undue delays and aims to ensure that justice is promptly administered, both in the interests of the accused and of society.

  2. Rule 119 of the Rules of Court (Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure)

    • Rule 119 governs trial in criminal cases.
    • It provides time frames and procedures for conducting the trial.
    • Central to the rule is ensuring that the proceedings are conducted expeditiously without violating the rights of the accused.

  3. Speedy Trial Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8493)

    • This law was enacted to enforce and give teeth to the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial.
    • It sets out time limits within which a trial must commence and specific reasons that may justify delay (e.g., motion of the accused, unavoidable court congestion, or other factors beyond the control of the prosecution).

  4. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 8493

    • Clarify the specific periods and permissible delays.
    • Typically, the trial should start within 30 days from arraignment (subject to certain exclusions and allowed postponements).

II. PRESCRIBED PERIODS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND RULE 119

  1. Start of Trial

    • Under Section 1(g) of Rule 119 (as amended) and the Speedy Trial Act, the trial “shall commence within 30 days from receipt of the pre-trial order.”
    • If no pre-trial is conducted, it should commence within 30 days from arraignment or within the approved resetting schedule.

  2. Allowed Postponements and Delays

    • The Act and its IRR enumerate justifiable reasons for delay, such as:
      • Motions filed by the accused (to quash, for reconsideration, etc.).
      • Congestion of the court’s docket, provided the court has determined that the interests of justice warrant a delay.
      • Unavailability of an essential witness, with due diligence shown by the prosecution.
      • Any other unavoidable or exceptional circumstances.

  3. Excludable Delays

    • Under R.A. 8493, certain periods are excluded from the computation of the trial deadline, including but not limited to:
      • Delay resulting from mental examinations of the accused.
      • Delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused (e.g., interlocutory appeals, resolution of motions).
      • Delay to accommodate the co-accused in the same proceeding (joint trials).

III. WHEN THE RIGHT IS VIOLATED

A. Determining a Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial

  1. Balancing Test

    • Philippine courts often refer to jurisprudential guidance, which may mirror the U.S. Supreme Court’s Barker v. Wingo balancing test (though not binding, it has persuasive value).
    • The factors typically considered include:
      1. Length of delay.
      2. Reason for the delay.
      3. Assertion or failure to assert the right by the accused.
      4. Prejudice caused by the delay.

  2. Proactive Assertion of Right

    • The accused must not simply allow the case to languish; there is an expectation that the accused will timely invoke the right to speedy trial if they believe it is being infringed.
    • Failure to invoke or object to postponements might weaken the claim of prejudice.

  3. Prejudice to the Accused

    • A key consideration is whether the accused suffered prejudice (e.g., extended incarceration, anxiety, or impairment of the defense).
    • However, prejudice is not solely the measure—egregious violations of deadlines may still warrant relief even absent a showing of actual prejudice.

B. Nature of the Remedy

  1. Motion to Dismiss

    • The primary remedy is to file a Motion to Dismiss (or to Quash the Information) on the ground of violation of the right to speedy trial.
    • If successful, it results in the dismissal of the criminal case.
    • Double jeopardy generally attaches if the case is dismissed with prejudice, barring further prosecution for the same offense.

  2. Motion to Release on Recognizance or to Reduce Bail

    • If the accused is detained pending trial and the delay is attributable to factors beyond the accused’s control, a motion to release the accused on recognizance or to reduce bail can be filed as an interim remedy.
    • This is especially crucial if the violation is not yet sufficient to warrant outright dismissal but the period of delay has become unduly oppressive.

  3. Petition for Mandamus or Certiorari

    • In exceptional cases, if the trial court unreasonably denies a motion to dismiss or fails to promptly resolve it, the accused may file a Petition for Certiorari (under Rule 65) alleging grave abuse of discretion or a Petition for Mandamus to compel the judge to act.
    • Courts, however, generally discourage fragmentary appeals (i.e., raising every interlocutory order before the appellate courts). Still, if the right to speedy trial is blatantly violated and no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is available, resort to a higher court may be justified.

  4. Ground for Administrative Complaint

    • Undue delay that is attributable to judges, prosecutors, or court personnel can form the basis of an administrative complaint if it is shown to be a result of negligence, misconduct, or other improper behavior.
    • The focus is typically on ensuring the defendant has a recourse to expedite proceedings rather than obtaining disciplinary sanctions, but it remains an option if the delay is inexcusable.

IV. PROCEDURE FOR INVOKING THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

  1. Step 1: Timely Objection to Postponements

    • Whenever the prosecution or even the court moves for postponement, the accused should lodge a timely objection if the postponement seems unwarranted.
    • This helps build a record of objections for any later motion to dismiss.

  2. Step 2: File the Proper Motion

    • Motion to Dismiss grounded on violation of speedy trial:
      • Title the motion (e.g., “Motion to Dismiss on the Ground of Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial”).
      • Cite constitutional provisions, Rule 119, R.A. 8493, and the relevant IRR.
      • State the facts chronologically, emphasizing the dates of arraignment, any postponements, and the total elapsed time.
      • Explain how the delay was not due to the accused’s motions or actions.
      • Show prejudice, if any, caused to the accused.
      • Request for dismissal with prejudice (depending on the gravity of the violation).

  3. Step 3: Hearing on the Motion

    • The court will set the motion for hearing; the prosecution may file an opposition.
    • Both sides present arguments (and potentially evidence) concerning the reasons for the delay and any prejudice.

  4. Step 4: Resolution by the Court

    • If the court finds the delay unjustified and in violation of the Speedy Trial Act or constitutional right, it may grant the motion and dismiss the case, typically with prejudice.
    • If the court denies the motion, the accused may proceed to trial, but could consider an extraordinary writ in cases of grave abuse of discretion.

V. JURISPRUDENCE AND ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

  1. People v. Leviste

    • Emphasized that “speedy trial” is relative; what constitutes delay depends on the circumstances of each case.

  2. Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan

    • Reiterated that the right to speedy trial may be waived or lost if not timely invoked. The accused must show consistent efforts to assert it.

  3. Caballes v. Court of Appeals

    • Demonstrated the importance of the balancing test: length and cause of the delay, the accused’s assertion of the right, and prejudice are all weighed.
    • The Court recognized that excessive or capricious delay due to prosecution or court inaction warrants dismissal.

  4. Barker v. Wingo (U.S. case, persuasive)

    • While not binding, our courts sometimes cite it for the balancing test. The main takeaway is that prejudice to the accused is one factor among many.

VI. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DUTIES OF LAWYERS

  1. Duty to Assert the Right

    • Defense counsel must zealously protect the client’s interest by promptly invoking the right to speedy trial.
    • Failure to assert the right or to challenge unreasonable postponements could be deemed neglect of duty.

  2. Duty to Avoid Frivolous Delays

    • While the defense is entitled to fully exercise its rights, counsel should avoid filing manifestly dilatory motions that could undermine the speedy disposition of cases.

  3. Prosecutor’s Responsibility

    • Prosecutors have an ethical duty to ensure the prompt prosecution of offenses, as undue delay can compromise the pursuit of justice.

  4. Judicial Responsibility

    • Judges are duty-bound to manage court dockets responsibly, avoid unreasonable postponements, and comply with the Speedy Trial Act’s timelines.

VII. PRACTICAL TIPS FOR THE ACCUSED AND COUNSEL

  1. Document Everything

    • Keep meticulous records of all settings, postponements, and reasons for delay.
    • Official transcripts or minutes of hearings are invaluable when proving the extent of delay and attributing fault.

  2. Invoke the Right Early

    • The earlier the accused or counsel files objections or motions for speedy trial, the stronger the position if a dismissal motion becomes necessary.

  3. Explore Intermediate Remedies

    • If dismissal is premature, consider seeking release on bail (or reduced bail) if prolonged detention is oppressive.
    • Do not neglect the possibility of an administrative complaint if official misconduct is apparent, though this is generally separate from the main criminal action.

  4. Check Excludable Periods

    • Before filing a motion to dismiss, be sure to calculate whether certain periods are legally excludable under R.A. 8493.
    • This ensures that the motion is well-founded and not premature.

VIII. SAMPLE FORM: MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

Below is a simplified outline of a motion. (Note that actual practice should include the full caption and compliance with local rules on spacing, page limits, and required attachments.)

Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
___________, Branch No. ____

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,

– versus –

JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Accused.

Crim. Case No. ____

MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

Accused JUAN DELA CRUZ, through undersigned counsel, respectfully states:

  1. Background/Timeline

    • On [date], the accused was arraigned for [offense charged].
    • Trial was scheduled on [date], but was reset on several occasions for reasons not attributable to the accused. (Enumerate dates and reasons for postponement.)
    • As of this date, more than [X months] have elapsed since arraignment/pre-trial, exceeding the allowable period under Rule 119 and R.A. 8493.

  2. Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial

    • Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, and R.A. 8493 mandate that trial must commence within the prescribed period.
    • The delays were not due to the fault, requests, or acts of the accused.
    • Such protracted and unjustified delay has prejudiced the accused by [state prejudice, e.g., prolonged detention, anxiety, difficulty securing witnesses, etc.].

  3. Prayer

    • WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court DISMISS the instant case on the ground of violation of the accused’s right to a speedy trial.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

[Date, Place]

Counsel for the Accused
Roll No. ___________
IBP No. ____________ / [Date, Chapter]
MCLE Compliance No. _______

IX. CONCLUSION

In sum, the remedy when an accused is not brought to trial within the prescribed period under Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and R.A. 8493 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998) is primarily to file a Motion to Dismiss (or to Quash) invoking the constitutional right to speedy trial. The courts use a balancing test to evaluate whether the delay is justifiable or attributable to the accused. If the delay is deemed violative of the right, the criminal case may be dismissed with prejudice, thus preventing further prosecution for the same offense. Defense counsel should diligently monitor each postponement and assert the right promptly, while prosecutors and judges have corresponding ethical obligations to avoid unreasonable delays. Where immediate dismissal is not feasible, motions for bail, certiorari, or mandamus (in extreme cases) may be invoked to protect the accused’s constitutional rights.

The right to a speedy trial is fundamental to the administration of justice in the Philippines. Ensuring compliance with the prescribed periods under the law safeguards not only the liberty and interests of the accused but also upholds public confidence in the judicial process.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login