Category: Criminal Procedure
> The trial should be speedy, public and impartial
> The right means that the trial should be conducted according to the law of criminal procedure and the rules and regulations and it should be free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays
> According to the Speedy Trial Act of 1988, and Circular 38-98, if the accused pleads not guilty, arraignment and pre-trial should be held within 30 days from the time the court acquires jurisdiction
over the accused
> In no case shall the entire period exceed 180 days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Court Administrator
1. Length of delay
2. Reason for the delay
3. The defendant’s assertion of his right
4. Prejudice to the defendant
1. Motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of right to speedy trial—must be filed before trial. This has the same effect as an acquittal for purposes of double jeopardy.
2. File for mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information
3. If he is restrained of his liberty, file for habeas corpus
4. Ask for the trial of the case and move to dismiss
> The limitation is that the State shouldn't be deprived of its day in court
> The right of the State and the prosecution to due process should be respected
> No, the right to speedy trial is violated when there are unjustified postponements of the trial and a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the case being tried for no unjustifiable reason
NOTA BENE: Corollary to the right to speedy trial is the right to speedy disposition of cases.
> It means that anyone interested in observing the manner that a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may do so
> The trial should be public in order to prevent abuses that may be committed by the court to the prejudice of the defendant
> Moreover the accused is entitled to the moral support of his friends and relatives
> Yes, the court may bar the public in certain cases, such as when the evidence to be presented may be offensive to decency or public morals, or in rape cases, where the purpose of some
persons in attending is merely to ogle at the parties
> Yes, there is no violation of the right to a public trial since the public isn’t excluded from attending the trial
> To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegations and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be by the barrage of
publicity