Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 174 views

    CAES Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Agnes Lintao
    The document discusses a case where a petitioner was charged with illegal possession of firearms and marijuana. The trial was delayed multiple times over several years due to witnesses and prosecutors not being available. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was violated due to the numerous delays.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CAES Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Agnes Lintao
    174 views1 page
    The document discusses a case where a petitioner was charged with illegal possession of firearms and marijuana. The trial was delayed multiple times over several years due to witnesses and prosecutors not being available. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was violated due to the numerous delays.

    Original Description:

    Right of the Accused to Speedy Trial Constitutional Law 2

    Original Title

    CAES vs IAC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where a petitioner was charged with illegal possession of firearms and marijuana. The trial was delayed multiple times over several years due to witnesses and prosecutors not being available. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was violated due to the numerous delays.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    174 views1 page

    CAES Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Agnes Lintao
    The document discusses a case where a petitioner was charged with illegal possession of firearms and marijuana. The trial was delayed multiple times over several years due to witnesses and prosecutors not being available. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was violated due to the numerous delays.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Caes vs.

    IAC
    Facts:
    On November 21, 1981, petitioner Joel Caes was charged in two separate Informations with illegal possession of
    firearms and illegal possession of marijuana before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The cases were consolidated
    on December 10, 1981. Arraignment was originally scheduled on January 11, 1982, but was for some reason
    postponed. On August 31, 1982, Caes was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Trial was scheduled for October 13,
    1982, but this was reset upon agreement of the parties. Several other trial dates were reset mostly because the
    prosecutions witnesses were not available.
    On November 14, 1983, upon motion of the prosecution, the judge provisionally dismissed the case for lack of
    interest of the prosecution witnesses to appear. On January 9, 1984, Maj. Dacanay and Sgt. Lustado filed a motion
    to revive the case who alleged that they could not attend the hearing scheduled on November 14, 1983, for lack of
    notice. The judge acting on the motion, revived the cases and set a hearing on June 1984. Petitioner filed a motion
    for reconsideration but was denied, and the revived cases were set from hearing on November 19, 1984.
    The petitioner questioned the judge's order on certiorari with the SC, which referred his petition to the respondent
    court. The petition there was dismissed for lack of merit on and reconsideration denied. Caes then came to SC again
    and raised a petition is based on two arguments, to wit: (a) that the motion to revive the cases was invalid because it
    was not filed by the proper party nor was a copy served on the petitioner; and (b) the revival of the cases would place
    the petitioner double jeopardy in violation of the Bill of Rights.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the plaintiffs right to speedy trial has been violated?
    Ruling:
    Yes, his right to speedy trial has been violated. As the record shows, the petitioner was arraigned on August 31, 1982,
    but was never actually tried until the cases were dismissed on November 14, 1983, following eleven postponements
    of the scheduled hearings, mostly because the prosecution was not prepared. The accused was never absent at
    these aborted hearings. He was prepared to be tried, but either the witnesses against him were not present, or the
    prosecutor himself was absent, or the court lacked material time. Meantime, the charges against him continued to
    hang over his head even as he was not given an opportunity to deny them because his trial could not be held.

    You might also like