Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
---versus---
JOB HUTT,
Accused
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///
PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
Page | 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUES
Page | 2
or administrative bodies”2 are protected. These rights are reiterated
in Rule 115 of the Rules of Court where it states that one the rights
of the accused is the right “To have speedy, impartial and public
trial.”3 As discussed in People v. Sandiganbayan4:
149802, 150320, 150367, 153207, and 153459, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 1, 124-
125; Domondon v. Sandiganbayan, supra, at 505; Caballes v. Court of Appeals,supra, at
332; Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162214, November 11, 2004, 442 SCRA 294,
313; People v. Tee, supra, at 544; Ty-Dazo v. Sandiganbayan, supra, at 951; Lopez, Jr. v.
Office of the Ombudsman, supra, at 49-50; Abardo v. Sandiganbayan, supra, at 654; Blanco
v. Sandiganbayan, 399 Phil. 674, 682 (2000); Sumbang, Jr. v. Gen. Court Martial Pro-Region
6, Iloilo City, supra, at 935; and Dansal v. Hon. Fernandez, Sr., supra, at 906.
11 407 US 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182 (1972).
Page | 3
We start with the length of the delay. In Tatad v.
Sandiganbayan,12 the Court ruled that a delay of almost three
years in the conduct of the preliminary investigation constituted a
violation of the constitutional rights of the accused to due process
and to the speedy disposition of his case. In People v.
Sandiganbayan,13 the Supreme Court ruled: “There was really no
sufficient justification tendered by the State for the long delay of
more than five years in bringing the charges against the
respondents before the proper court.” Likewise, in Angchangco, Jr.
v. Ombudsman14 and Roque v. Office of the Ombudsman,15 the
Supreme Court held that the delay of almost or more than six (6)
years in resolving the criminal charges against the petitioners
therein amounted to a violation of their constitutional rights to due
process and to a speedy disposition of the cases. Also, in Inocentes
v. People16, the Court stated: “Plainly, the delay of at least seven (7)
years before the informations were filed skews the fairness which
the right to speedy disposition of cases seeks to maintain.” The case
at bar has languored on for four years, clearly meeting the requisite
time frame to be considered as unjust delay.
12 G.R. No. 72335-39, March 21, 1988, 159 SCRA 70, 82-83.
13 People v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 188165, December 11, 2013
14 335 Phil. 766, 770 (1997).
15 366 Phil. 568, 576-577 (1999).
16 Inocentes v. People, G.R. No. 205963-64, July 27, 2016
17 G.R. No. 154684, September 8, 2005, 469 SCRA 424
Page | 4
not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion,
shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, except the
grounds of no offense charged, lack of jurisdiction over the offense
charged, extinction of the offense or penalty and jeopardy, as provided
for in paragraphs (a), (b), (f) and (h) of Section 3 of this Rule.”18
Page | 5
right is void for lack of jurisdiction22. Any judgment or decision
rendered notwithstanding such violation may be regarded as a
lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight
or ignored wherever it exhibits its head23.” It is clear that violations
of the right to speedy disposition of cases and the right to speedy
trial are violations of basic constitutional rights which would then
divest the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.
22 Aducayen vs. Flores, L-30370, May 25, 1973 51 SCRA 78; Shell Co. vs. Enage, L-30111-12,
49 SCRA 416 Feb. 27, 1973
23 Id
24 Sec 7, Rule 117, Rules of Court
25 People vs. Nitafan, 302 SCRA 424, 440 (1999).
26 People vs. Bans, 239 SCRA 48, 55 (1994).
27 Commission on Elections vs. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 501, 507 (1994).
Page | 6
passage of time should be weighed against the State and in favor of
the individual.28 In the context of the right to a speedy trial, the
Court in Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan29 illumined:
28
Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2013
29
Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, 484 Phil. 899, 917 (2004). (Citations omitted)
Page | 7
Furthermore, a defendant has no duty to bring himself to
trial; the State has that duty as well as the duty of insuring that
the trial is consistent with due process.30
PRAYER
Page | 8
GAUDENCIO QUINITO A. LIGUTOM IV
Counsel for the Accused
PTR No. 023420; Jan. 5, 2022;
IBP No. 453420; Jan. 19, 2022, Cebu City
Roll of Attorney’s No. 12345
MCLE Compliance No. M-1234567
Tel. No. (032) 273-6420
Mobile No. 09436152420
PHILIP IAN DY
Counsel for the Accused
PTR No. 023420; Jan. 5, 2022;
IBP No. 453420; Jan. 19, 2022, Cebu City
Roll of Attorney’s No. 12345
MCLE Compliance No. M-1234567
Tel. No. (032) 273-6420
Mobile No. 09436152420
Page | 9
NOTICE OF HEARING
Greetings:
EXPLANATION
Page | 10