In determining whether the accused’s right to speedy trial was violated, the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings

G.R. No. 183994, June 30, 2014, WILLIAM CO A.K.A. XU QUING HE, PETITIONER, VS. NEW PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS, REPRESENTED BY ELIZABETH UY, RESPONDENT.
(THE LAWYER’S POST).


“x x x.
First, Co’s charge that his right to a speedy trial was violated is baseless. Obviously, he failed to show any evidence that the alleged “vexatious, capricious and oppressive” delay in the trial was attended with malice or that the same was made without good cause or justifiable motive on the part of the prosecution. This Court has emphasized that “‘speedy trial’ is a relative term and necessarily a flexible concept.”⁠1 In determining whether the accused’s right to speedy trial was violated, the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings.⁠2 The factors to balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such delay.⁠3 Surely, mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the realities of everyday life must be regarded in judicial proceedings which, after all, do not exist in a vacuum, and that particular regard must be given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.⁠4 “While the Court recognizes the accused’s right to speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration of justice, we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals. Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial.”⁠5


X x x.”