Floresss Vs People GR L-25769 December 10 1974 Facts
Uploaded by
Yeshua TuraFloresss Vs People GR L-25769 December 10 1974 Facts
Uploaded by
Yeshua TuraFloresss vs People GR L-25769 December 10 1974
FACTS:
Petitioners, Francisco Flores and Francisco Angel, were accused for robbery. Information was filed
in December 1951. They were found guilty of the crime charged in November 1955. Notice of
appeal was file in December 1955. It was until February 1958 that action was taken by CA—a
resolution remanding the records of the case to the lower court for a rehearing of the testimony of a
certain witness deemed material for the disposition of the case. Such resolution was amended dated
August 1959 which granted the petitioners to set aside the decision so that evidence for the defense
on new facts may be received and a new decision in lieu of the old one may be rendered. The case
was returned to the lower court but nothing was done for about a year because the offended party
failed to appear despite the 6/7 dates set for such hearing. Furthermore, when the offended party
took the witness stand, his testimony was characterized as a mere fiasco as he could no longer
remember the details of the alleged crime and even failed to identify the 2 accused.
The trial court instead of rendering a decision sent back the records to the appellate tribunal. 5 more
years elapsed without anything being done, petitioners sought dismissal of the case against them due
to inordinate delay in the disposition (from December 1955- May 1965). CA was unresponsive
notwithstanding the vigorous plea of the petitioners, its last order being a denial of a second MR
dated January 1966. CA’s defense is that the case was not properly captioned as “People of the
Philippines” and without “Court of Appeals” being made a party to the petition.
ISSUE: WON constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.
HELD: YES. Petition for certiorari was granted. Orders denying Motion to dismiss as Motion to
Reconsideration are set aside and nullified. Criminal Case against petitioners was dismissed.
Constitutional right to a speedy trial means one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive
delays. An accused is entitled to a trial at the earliest opportunity. He cannot be oppressed by
delaying the commencement of the trial for an unreasonable length of time. The Constitution does
not say that such right may be availed only where the prosecution of a crime is commenced and
undertaken by the fiscal. It does not exclude from its operation cases commenced by private
individuals. “Where a person is prosecuted criminally, he is entitled to a speedy trial, irrespective of
the nature of the offense or the manner in which it is authorized to be commenced”.
Technicalities should give way to the realities of the situation. There should not be too much
significance attached to the procedural defect (refer to CA’s defense). CA failed to accord respect to
this particular constitutional right amounting at the very least to a grave abuse of discretion.
