Professional Documents
Culture Documents
on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that
are also legal or constitutional in nature." Given our ruling that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over
the instant case, we find no necessity to address the other issues raised in the three consolidated
petitions. The petition is denied.
We disagree. Cos 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." 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.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. 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. "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." Petition is denied.
proprio, it being unnecessary that it results from a verified complaint from an aggrieved party. A
prior hearing is also not required whenever the Commission finds it appropriate to issue a cease
and desist order that aims to curtail fraud or grave or irreparable injury to investors. There is
good reason for this provision, as any delay in the restraint of acts that yield such results can only
generate further injury to the public that the SEC is obliged to protect. To equally protect
individuals and corporations from baseless and improvident issuances, the authority of the SEC
under this rule is nonetheless with defined limits. A cease and desist order may only be issued by
the Commission after proper investigation or verification, and upon showing that the acts sought
to be restrained could result in injury or fraud to the investing public. Without doubt, these
requisites were duly satisfied by the SEC prior to its issuance of the subject cease and desist
order. The SEC was not mandated to allow Primanila to participate in the investigation
conducted by the Commission prior to the cease and desist orders issuance. Given the
circumstances, it was sufficient for the satisfaction of the demands of due process that the
company was amply apprised of the results of the SEC investigation, and then given the
reasonable opportunity to present its defense. Primanila was able to do this via its motion to
reconsider and lift the cease and desist order. After the CED filed its comment on the motion,
Primanila was further given the chance to explain its side to the SEC through the filing of its
reply. Trite to state, a formal trial or hearing is not necessary to comply with the requirements
of due process. Its essence is simply the opportunity to explain ones position. Petition is
denied.
People of the Philippines vs. Sukarno Junaide Y Agga
G.R. No. 193856, April 21, 2014
Facts: Junaide was caught in an entrapment operation for selling illegal drugs. Subsequently, the
police brought accused Junaide to the police station where SPO1 Mirasol marked the four
sachets seized from him and turned these over to the case investigator, SPO1 Federico Lindo, Jr.
The latter then turned over the seized items to the police crime laboratory. The sachet Junaide
sold was found to contain 0.0101 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; the other
sachets contained a total of 0.0235 gram. Accused Junaide, on the other hand, testified that he
was napping at home when sounds of commotion outside his house woke him up. As he took a
look, he saw people being chased and his neighbors getting arrested. Junaide left his house a
little later to fetch his nephew from school but while waiting for the boy, two armed men alighted
from a white jeep and handcuffed him. They frisked him but found nothing. They showed him a
sachet of shabu and said that they would use it as evidence against him. Junaide later identified
the two men as SPO1 Roca and SPO1 Mirasol. Two neighbors claimed that they had seen the
incident and corroborated Junaides story. SPO1 Roca testified that he marked the plastic sachet
of shabu that he bought with his initials "RR" but when the supposed sachet was presented to
him in court for identification, it instead carried the marking "RR-1." This may be just a mistake
but he denied having made a mistake and admitted that the "RR-1" marking could have been
made by just anybody.