Churchille Mari and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

----vs---Hon. Rolando Gonzales, RTC Judge and PO1 Rudyard Paloma

Right to Speedy Trial
FACTS:
1. Private Complainant Mari executed a sworn statement before the police alleging that she
was raped by Private Respondent Paloma. Preliminary Investigation ensued and a
warrant of arrest against Paloma was eventually issued by MCTC. Paloma voluntarily
surrendered.
2. Paloma filed a motion for bail. During the hearing for bail, Petitioner failed to appear,
and an Order granting bail was given to Paloma, set at 200k.
3. An administrative order from SC divested the first-level courts of the authority to
conduct preliminary investigation. Hence, the records of the case was forwarded to the
Public Prosecutor, who found probable cause to file the Information. RTC then found
cause to issue a warrant of arrest and Paloma was recommitted to detention.
4. During the different stages of arraignment, pre-trial, and trial, both Public and Private
Prosecutors, as well as the Complainant herself failed to appear despite due notice. Some
of their reasons for failing to appear:
a. That there is still a pending petition for change of venue
i. Dismissed by Respondent Judge as it is not excusable for not appearing in
hearings
b. That there are other cases being handled by the Private Prosecutor
i. Dismissed by the Judge. This argument was raised on the latter part of the
case when the prosecution has already failed to appear multiple times.
Also, the accused has already invoked his right to a speedy trial. Accused
was already in jail.
5. The Respondent Judge eventually dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. MR
likewise denied. Hence, this petition
ISSUE: W/N The accused right to speedy trial is violated (YES)
HELD:
Petitioners argue that Respondent Judge dismissed the case too hastily. According to S10 of
Speedy Trial Act, now embodied in S3 R119:
SEC. 3. Exclusions. - The following periods of delay shall be excluded in
computing the time within which trial must commence:
(a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings
concerning the accused, including but not limited to the
following:
xxxx

(5) Delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or

proceedings relating to change of venue of cases or
transfer from other courts.
Court disagrees, a reading of the rule would show that the rule shows that the only delay that
may be excluded from the time limit are those resulting from the proceedings concerning the
accused. The change of venue proceeding can only be excluded if the accused was the one who
filed for it, contrary to what happened in this case.
Further, records show that the 30-day limit in R119 S1 had already been breached. SC agrees
with the RTC in observing that the prosecution appeared to be intentionally delaying the
proceedings by failing to appear on the hearings set by the court, filing a motion for cancellation
of hearing on the day of the hearing itself, or not even bothering to appear on the date they set
for hearing on their motion.
Petitioners are also mistaken that the mere pendency of their petition for change of venue would
interrupt the proceedings before the trial court. It is the same as when a petition for certiorari is
filed; it does not interrupt the proceedings before the trial court unless a writ of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order is given.
Further, in recent jurisprudence, in determining w/n the accused is deprived of the right to
speedy trial, the following factors are to be considered:
a. Duration of the delay
b. Reason for such delay
c. Assertion of the right (to speedy trial) or failure to assert it
d. Prejudice caused by such delay
In determining the right to a speedy trial, the courts are required to do more than a
mathematical equation. In this case, the accused was already deprived of liberty for 4 months
when he was first incarcerated by the MCTC, and again for 6 months after the Information was
filed before the RTC following the Adm. Order. Verily, the accused was already deprived of
liberty and it is vexatious to delay the proceedings by a mere motion for change of venue,
especially so if theres no WPI or TRO.
WHEREFORE, Petition is DISMISSED.