
PERIODS THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TRIAL MUST COMMENCE
Category: Criminal Procedure
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:
(1) Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the accused;
(2) Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the accused;
(3) Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;
(4) Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; 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 existence of a 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 an essential witness.
For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness shall be considered absent when his whereabouts are unknown or his whereabouts cannot be determined by due diligence. He shall be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence.
(c) Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or physical inability of the accused 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, 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 separate trial has been granted.
(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu proprio, or on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if the court granted the continuance on the basis of its findings set forth in the order that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in a speedy trial.
WHAT ARE THE PERIODS THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TRIAL MUST COMMENCE?
1. Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused.
2. Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential witness.
3. Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or physical inability of the accused to stand trial.
4. If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed against the accused for the same 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.
5. 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 separate trial has been granted.
6. Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu proprio, or on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if the court granted the continuance
on the basis of its findings set forth in the order that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in a speedy trial.
WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF OTHER PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE ACCUSED WHICH SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF TIME?
1. Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the accused;
2. Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the accused;
3. Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;
4. Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; 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 existence of a 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 (careful consideration).
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
PERIODS THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TRIAL MUST COMMENCE
Category: Criminal Procedure
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:
(1) Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the accused;
(2) Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the accused;
(3) Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;
(4) Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; 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 existence of a 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 an essential witness.
For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness shall be considered absent when his whereabouts are unknown or his whereabouts cannot be determined by due diligence. He shall be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence.
(c) Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or physical inability of the accused 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, 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 separate trial has been granted.
(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu proprio, or on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if the court granted the continuance on the basis of its findings set forth in the order that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in a speedy trial.
WHAT ARE THE PERIODS THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TRIAL MUST COMMENCE?
1. Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused.
2. Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential witness.
3. Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or physical inability of the accused to stand trial.
4. If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed against the accused for the same 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.
5. 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 separate trial has been granted.
6. Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu proprio, or on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if the court granted the continuance
on the basis of its findings set forth in the order that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in a speedy trial.
WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF OTHER PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE ACCUSED WHICH SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF TIME?
1. Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the accused;
2. Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the accused;
3. Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;
4. Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; 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 existence of a 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 (careful consideration).
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 1 week ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 4 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 4 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
GESTOPA V. CA 342 S…
GESTOPA V. CA342 SCRA 105FACTS:Spouses Gestopa previously issued a deed of donation mortis cause in favor of Mercedes but subsequently, they issued another deed, now inter vivos, still in favor of Mercedes. Mercedes now seeks the donated property but...
Read morePROHIBITION AGAINST…
PROHIBITION AGAINST ALIENATION OF LANDS ACQUIRED UNDER THE HOMESTEAD AND FREE PATENT PROVISIONS> Section 116. Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units or institutions, or legally constituted banking corporations, lands acquired...
Read moreNON-IMPRISONMENT FO…
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBTArticle 3, SECTION 20- Philippine ConstitutionLozano v. Martinez – constitutionality of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) – BP 22 is constitutional. The gravamen of BP 22 involves the issuance of a worthless check, not the non-paym...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more

