Case Digest (G.R. No. 131483)
Facts:
Tai Lim v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Fe Torres-Arcilla as Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 84, Malolos, Bulacan, and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 131483, October 26, 1999, Supreme Court Second Division, Buena, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Tai Lim was arraigned on August 8, 1995 and pleaded not guilty to the criminal charge in Criminal Case No. 645-M-95 pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 84, Malolos, Bulacan. The initial trial date was set for September 7, 1995 but the hearing calendar was repeatedly postponed, a total of eleven times over approximately fifteen months.
The postponements occurred on the following dates for the stated reasons: September 7, 1995 (prosecution witnesses’ offices had been transferred, so subpoenas were not duly served); October 3, 1995 and October 24, 1995 (no proofs/returns of service of subpoenas for prosecution witnesses); November 23, 1995 (prosecution requested opportunity to adduce evidence); December 14, 1995 (an enlisted police witness was present but the assigned prosecutor was absent); January 11, 1996 (forensic chemist subpoenaed in another court); February 27, 1996 (case reraffled to Branch 84); June 11, 1996 (petitioner was without counsel); July 1 and July 29, 1996 (resets due to scheduling/availability of newly engaged counsel); August 14, 1996 (none of the prosecution witnesses appeared); and September 17, 1996 (prosecution witnesses were notified but again failed to appear).
After these continuances, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss invoking his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The prosecution initially did not timely file its Comment; subsequently, after a fire on October 14, 1996 burned the court building and records had to be reconstituted, the prosecution filed its Comment following the trial court’s February 13, 1997 order. The trial court denied petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss on February 26, 1997 and denied reconsideration on May 2, 1997.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by a petition for certiorari and mandamus in CA-G.R. SP No. 44428, praying for dismissal of the criminal case for violation of his right to speedy trial. On November 14, 1997 the Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because many postpon...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner demonstrate that the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in denying his Motion to Dismiss for violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial?
- Were the postponements in Criminal Case No. 645-M-95 vexatious, capricious, or oppressive so as to constitute a denial of petitioner’...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)