Sec.  9.  Remedy  where  accused  is  not  brought  to  trial  within  the time limit. – If the  accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by Section 1(g), Rule 116 and Section 1, as extended by  Section  6  of  this  Rule,  the  information  may  be  dismissed  on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of proving the motion but the  prosecution  shall  have  the  burden  of  going  forward  with  the evidence to establish the exclusion of time under section 3 of this rule. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.
 
    Failure  of  the  accused  to  move  for  dismissal  prior  to  trial  shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.
 

IF  THE  ACCUSED  ISNT  BROUGHT  TO  TRIAL  WITHIN  THE  TIME LIMIT REQUIRED, WHAT IS THE REMEDY?

     The accused should move to dismiss the information, on a motion nolle prosequi, on the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial

     He  shall  have  the  burden  of  proving  the  motion,  but  the prosecution  shall  have  the  burden  or  proving  that  the  delay  was covered by the allowed exclusions of time  

     If  the  complaint  or  information  is  dismissed,  the  accused  can plead double jeopardy to a subsequent prosecution

     The accused must move to dismiss before actually going to trial.  Otherwise, it is a waiver of the right to dismiss
 
Sec. 10. Law on speedy trial not a bar to provision on speedy trial in  the  Constitution.  –  No  provision  of  law  on  speedy  trial  and  no rule  implementing  the  same  shall  be  interpreted  as  a  bar  to  any
charge of denial of the right to speedy trial guaranteed by Section 14(2), Article III, of the 1987 Constitution.
 
N.B:  The constitutional provision is broad while the law on speedy trial is more specific and gives effectivity to the constitutional provision.