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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Uy Vs Hon. Adriano

    Uploaded by

    VINA LORRAINE MARASIGAN
    The document discusses a case where two petitioners were charged with unfair competition for manufacturing and selling fake soy sauce. It took over four years for the prosecution to present three witnesses in the trial. The issue is whether the petitioners' right to a speedy trial was observed. The court found that both the petitioners and the state were prejudiced by the delay. While the delay violated the right to a speedy trial, there was no showing of bad faith by the prosecution or trial court.

    Copyright:

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

    Uy Vs Hon. Adriano

    Uploaded by

    VINA LORRAINE MARASIGAN
    12 views1 page
    The document discusses a case where two petitioners were charged with unfair competition for manufacturing and selling fake soy sauce. It took over four years for the prosecution to present three witnesses in the trial. The issue is whether the petitioners' right to a speedy trial was observed. The court found that both the petitioners and the state were prejudiced by the delay. While the delay violated the right to a speedy trial, there was no showing of bad faith by the prosecution or trial court.

    Original Title

    Uy vs Hon. Adriano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where two petitioners were charged with unfair competition for manufacturing and selling fake soy sauce. It took over four years for the prosecution to present three witnesses in the trial. The issue is whether the petitioners' right to a speedy trial was observed. The court found that both the petitioners and the state were prejudiced by the delay. While the delay violated the right to a speedy trial, there was no showing of bad faith by the prosecution or trial court.

    Copyright:

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

    Uy Vs Hon. Adriano

    Uploaded by

    VINA LORRAINE MARASIGAN
    The document discusses a case where two petitioners were charged with unfair competition for manufacturing and selling fake soy sauce. It took over four years for the prosecution to present three witnesses in the trial. The issue is whether the petitioners' right to a speedy trial was observed. The court found that both the petitioners and the state were prejudiced by the delay. While the delay violated the right to a speedy trial, there was no showing of bad faith by the prosecution or trial court.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    159098 October 27, 2006


    Uy vs Hon. Adriano

    Facts:
    Based on a confidential information that petitioner Henry Uy had been engaged in
    manufacturing, delivering, and selling "fake" Marca Piña soy sauce, Orlando S. Bundoc,
    Intelligence Officer II of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB),
    applied for a search warrant for unfair competition which was granted on February 14,
    1994.

    When the search warrant was implemented on even date, Atty. Francisco R.
    Estavillo, agent of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Tarlac, seized fifty-five
    (55) bottles of label Marca Piña soy sauce. Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed
    in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tarlac City on March 23, 1994, charging petitioner
    Henry Uy with violation of Article 189 (Unfair Competition) of the Revised Penal Code.
    After preliminary examination of the prosecution witnesses, the court found probable
    cause to indict petitioners. On January 30, 1995, the court issued a warrant of arrest
    against petitioners. They were released after posting a cash bond on February 1, 1995.

    On July 10, 1995, petitioners were arraigned, assisted by counsel, and pleaded
    not guilty to the charge. Petitioners, through counsel, waived the pre-trial conference on
    October 25, 1995. The initial trial was set on November 27, 1995. On March 10, 2000,
    petitioners, through their new counsel, filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to
    Evidence. The court granted the motion. petitioners argued that a judgment of acquittal
    is proper since no sufficient evidence was presented to prove beyond reasonable doubt
    that they are guilty of the offense charged. The prosecution was not able to establish that
    they gave their goods the general appearance of another manufacturer or dealer and that
    they had the intent to defraud the public or Piñakamasarap Corporation. Moreover, under
    both R.A. No. 166, as amended, and its repealing law, R.A. No. 8293, the RTC had
    jurisdiction over the crime charged; hence, the amended complaint should be quashed.

    Issue:
    Whether the right to speedy trial has been properly observed?

    Held:
    NO. Not only the petitioners but the State as well were prejudiced by the inordinate
    delay in the trial of the case. It took the prosecution more than four years to rest its case
    after presenting only three witnesses. Had the prosecution, petitioner and the trial court
    been assiduous in avoiding any inordinate delay in the trial, the prosecution could have
    rested its case much earlier. The court even failed to order the absent
    counsel/prosecutor/witnesses to explain/justify their absences or cite them for contempt.
    The speedy trial mandated by the Constitution and the Revised Rules of Criminal
    Procedure is as much the responsibility of the prosecution, the trial court and petitioners
    to the extent that the trial is inordinately delayed, and to that extent the interest of justice
    is prejudiced. The mistake of the City Prosecutor and the failure of the MTC to dismiss
    the case motu proprio should not prejudice the interest of the State to prosecute criminal
    offenses and, more importantly, defeat the right of the offended party to redress for its
    grievance. Significantly, petitioners do not attribute to the prosecution or to the MTC any
    malice aforethought or conscious disregard of their right to a speedy trial; nor have
    substantially proven the same by clear and convincing evidence. Hence, absent showing
    of bad faith or gross negligence, delay caused by the lapse of the prosecution is not in
    itself violative of the right to a speedy trial

    You might also like