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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 669 views

    Conde v. Rivera, G.R. No. 21741

    Uploaded by

    Jam Concepcion Odoño
    1) Aurelia Conde, a former municipal midwife, had been charged with multiple crimes and misdemeanors over the past year but her trials had been repeatedly postponed without her consent. 2) She argued that she had been deprived of her right to a speedy, impartial, and public trial under Philippine law. 3) The court ruled in her favor, finding that the prolonged delays violated her right to a speedy trial, and ordered the charges against her dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Conde v. Rivera, G.R. No. 21741

    Uploaded by

    Jam Concepcion Odoño
    669 views1 page
    1) Aurelia Conde, a former municipal midwife, had been charged with multiple crimes and misdemeanors over the past year but her trials had been repeatedly postponed without her consent. 2) She argued that she had been deprived of her right to a speedy, impartial, and public trial under Philippine law. 3) The court ruled in her favor, finding that the prolonged delays violated her right to a speedy trial, and ordered the charges against her dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law 2; Right to Speedy, Impartial, Public Trial; Bill of Rights

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Aurelia Conde, a former municipal midwife, had been charged with multiple crimes and misdemeanors over the past year but her trials had been repeatedly postponed without her consent. 2) She argued that she had been deprived of her right to a speedy, impartial, and public trial under Philippine law. 3) The court ruled in her favor, finding that the prolonged delays violated her right to a speedy trial, and ordered the charges against her dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    669 views1 page

    Conde v. Rivera, G.R. No. 21741

    Uploaded by

    Jam Concepcion Odoño
    1) Aurelia Conde, a former municipal midwife, had been charged with multiple crimes and misdemeanors over the past year but her trials had been repeatedly postponed without her consent. 2) She argued that she had been deprived of her right to a speedy, impartial, and public trial under Philippine law. 3) The court ruled in her favor, finding that the prolonged delays violated her right to a speedy trial, and ordered the charges against her dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    AURELIA CONDE v. PABLO RIVERA and FEDERICO M.

    UNSON

    G.R. No. L-21741, January 25, 1924

    MALCOLM, J.:

    DOCTRINE:

    Philippine organic and statutory law expressly guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused
    shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial.

    FACTS:

    Aurelia Conde, formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena, Tayabas, has been forced to respond to no less
    than five informations for various crimes and misdemeanors, has appeared with her witnesses and
    counsel at hearings no less than on eight different occasions only to see the cause postponed, has twice
    been required to come to the Supreme Court for protection, and now, after the passage of more than one
    year from the time when the first information was filed, seems as far away from a definite resolution of her
    troubles as she was when originally charged. Dismissed from her humble position, and compelled to
    dance attendance on courts while investigations and trials are arbitrarily postponed without her consent,
    is palpably and openly unjust to her and a detriment to the public.

    ISSUE:

    Is Ms. Conde deprived of her right to speedy, impartial and public trial?

    RULING:

    Yes. The petitioner, like all other accused persons, has a right to a speedy trial in order that if innocent
    she may go free, and she has been deprived of that right in defiance of law. By the use of reasonable
    diligence, the prosecution could have settled upon the appropriate information, could have attended to the
    formal preliminary examination, and could have prepared the case for a trial free from vexatious,
    capricious, and oppressive delays. The Court is thus under a moral and legal obligation to see that these
    proceedings come to an end and that the accused is discharged from the custody of the law. We lay down
    the legal proposition that, where a prosecuting officer, without good cause, secures postponements of the
    trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this instance for more
    than a year, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the
    information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom. The writ prayed
    for is granted and the Provincial Fiscal of Tayabas shall abstain from further attempts to prosecute the
    accused pursuant to informations growing out of the facts set forth in previous informations, and the
    charges now pending before the justice of the peace of Lucena, Tayabas, are ordered dismisse with cost
    against the respondent fiscal. The Attorney-General, being fully cognizant of the facts of record, will take
    such administrative action as to him seems proper to the end that incidents of this character may not
    recur.

    You might also like