People vs. Hernandez G.R. Nos. 154218 & 154372.

August 28, 2006 Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court." On August 11, 1998, the
Supreme Court issued Circular No. 38-98, the Rules Implementing R.A. No.
Topic: Right to Speedy Trial 8493. The provisions of said circular were adopted in the 2000 Revised Rules
Summary: speedy Trial Act of 1998, the law provided for time limits in order of Criminal Procedure. As to the time limit within which trial must
"to ensure a speedy trial of all criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan, commence after arraignment, the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
[RTC], Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit states:
Trial Court." Sec. 6, Rule 119. Extended time limit.-- Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 1(g), Rule 116 and the preceding section 1,
Facts:
for the first twelve-calendar-month period following its
COMELEC filed a total of 321 violation of Sec 27(b) RA 6646 against Salayon effectivity on September 15, 1998, the time limit with respect to
the period from arraignment to trial imposed by said provision
and Llorente (arraigned in 2001). After 111 days, a Motion to Dismiss was
shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For the second twelve-
filed based on the ground of denial of right to speedy trial. RTC granted the
month period, the time limit shall be one hundred twenty (120)
Motion to Dismiss and CA affirmed the same. days, and for the third twelve-month period, the time limit shall
be eighty (80) days.
Issue:
R.A. No. 8493 and its implementing rules and the Revised Rules of Criminal
Whether the CA erred in finding that respondent Judge did not commit
Procedure enumerate certain reasonable delays as exclusions in the
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the instant criminal cases against
computation of the prescribed time limits. They also provide that “no
private respondents upon a finding that the right of private respondents to
provision of law on speedy trial and no rule implementing the same shall be
speedy trial has been violated.
interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial of speedy trial as provided by
Held: Article III, Section 14(2), of the 1987 Constitution.” Thus, in spite of the
prescribed time limits, jurisprudence continues to adopt the view that the
No Grave abuse of discretion. Petition is Denied. Decision of CA is Affirmed. concept of “speedy trial” is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible
concept. In Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, 442 SCRA 294 (2004), we held:
Clearly, the one hundred eleven (111) days that have elapsed from the time
private respondents were arraigned on June 15, 2001 up to the filing of the The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy
Motion to Dismiss by private respondents on the ground of the denial of disposition of the case against him was designed to prevent the
their right to speedy trial on October 4, 2001 is beyond the 80-day limit oppression of the citizen by holding criminal prosecution
provided under the law and the rules suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in
the administration of justice by mandating the courts to proceed
The right of the accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed under Sections 14(2) with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases. Such right to
and 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. In 1998, Congress enacted R.A. a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only
No. 8493, otherwise known as the "Speedy Trial Act of 1998." The law when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays. While justice is administered with dispatch, the
provided for time limits in order "to ensure a speedy trial of all criminal
essential ingredient is orderly, expeditious and not mere speed. It
cases before the Sandiganbayan, [RTC], Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
cannot be definitely said how long is too long in a system where
 justice is supposed to be swift, but deliberate. Also, it must be
borne in mind that the rights given to the accused by the
Constitution and the Rules of Court are shields, not weapons;
hence, courts are to give meaning to that intent.

A balancing test of applying societal interests and the rights of the accused
necessarily compels the court to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc
basis. In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right to
a speedy disposition of the case and to a speedy trial, four factors must be
considered: (a) lengthof delay; (b) the reason for the delay; (c) the
defendant’s assertion of his right; and (d) prejudice to the defendant.