Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

7 Cabarles v Maceda

Petitioner was charged with murder and entered a not guilty plea. Despite the fact that the
prosecution failed to present its evidence on the first four hearing dates and there was either no
return on the several issued subpoenas requesting witness and doctor to appear in court or there was
no subpoena issued at all, Judge Maceda gave the prosecution a last chance to present the alleged
eyewitness and doctor.
Was the petitioners right to speedy disposition of his case violated?

Yes. Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each
case. The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated
only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when
unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or when without cause or justifiable
motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. In this
particular case, the prosecution was given ample opportunity to present all its witnesses but it failed
to do so. The failure of the prosecution to take full advantage of the opportunities given does not
change the fact that it was accorded such opportunities. Almost 8 years since the filing of the
information has elapsed and yet there is still no judgment rendered.