Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Benares vs. Lim, G.R. No. 173421. December 14, 2006

    Uploaded by

    ashyy
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was not violated. There was only one delay caused by the late filing of the prosecution's formal offer of evidence, which could not be considered vexatious, capricious, or oppressive. The criminal case was not unreasonably prolonged, nor was there deliberate intent by the prosecution to cause delay resulting in prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.

    Copyright:

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

    Benares vs. Lim, G.R. No. 173421. December 14, 2006

    Uploaded by

    ashyy
    56 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was not violated. There was only one delay caused by the late filing of the prosecution's formal offer of evidence, which could not be considered vexatious, capricious, or oppressive. The criminal case was not unreasonably prolonged, nor was there deliberate intent by the prosecution to cause delay resulting in prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.

    Original Title

    624. Benares vs. Lim, G.R. No. 173421. December 14, 2006

    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 Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was not violated. There was only one delay caused by the late filing of the prosecution's formal offer of evidence, which could not be considered vexatious, capricious, or oppressive. The criminal case was not unreasonably prolonged, nor was there deliberate intent by the prosecution to cause delay resulting in prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.

    Copyright:

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

    Benares vs. Lim, G.R. No. 173421. December 14, 2006

    Uploaded by

    ashyy
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was not violated. There was only one delay caused by the late filing of the prosecution's formal offer of evidence, which could not be considered vexatious, capricious, or oppressive. The criminal case was not unreasonably prolonged, nor was there deliberate intent by the prosecution to cause delay resulting in prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.

    Copyright:

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

    Benares vs. Lim, G.R. No. 173421. December 14, 2006.

    There was actually only one unjustified delay in the filing of formal offer of
    evidence in the proceedings below, which cannot be described as vexatious,
    Topic: Right to Speedy Trial capricious or oppressive. There is no showing that the criminal case was
    Summary: unreasonably prolonged nor there was deliberate intent on the part of the
    petitioner to cause delay in the proceedings resulting to serious and great
    The prosecution's delay in the filing of its formal offer of evidence in this prejudice affecting the substantial rights of the accused.
    case cannot be considered vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
    Delay is not a mere mathematical computation of the time involved. Each
    Facts: case must be decided upon the facts peculiar to it. The following factors
    must be considered and balanced: the length of the delay, the reasons for
    Petitioner Oscar Beñares was accused of estafa. After the prosecution
    such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and
    presented its last witness, it was given 15 days to formally offer its evidence.
    the prejudice caused by the delay. In the instant case, the totality of the
    The prosecution did not make any formal offer of evidence, hence petitioner
    circumstances excuses the delay occasioned by the late filing of the
    filed a motion praying that the prosecution's submission of formal offer of
    prosecution’s formal offer of evidence. Since the delay was not vexatious or
    evidence be deemed waived and the case dismissed for lack of evidence.
    oppressive, it follows that petitioner’s right to speedy trial was not violated,
    The MeTC issued an Order giving the prosecution another 15 days within
    consequently he cannot properly invoke his right against double jeopardy.
    which to formally offer its evidence which petitioner opposed. Respondent
    moved to reconsider. Subsequently, MeTC finds merit in the Motion for
    Recon, thus: Prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence is admitted by the Court
    and the accused is given 15 days

    Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. RTC, favored


    petitioner. CA, favored respondents. The appellate court also held that
    petitioner's right to speedy trial was not violated when respondent failed to
    formally offer her evidence within the period required by the trial court.

    Issue:

    THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT


    THE RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER TO SPEEDY TRIAL WAS NOT VIOLATED

    Held:

    No. Petition is Denied. CA Decision is Affirmed.

    The prosecution's delay in the filing of its formal offer of evidence in this
    case cannot be considered vexatious, capricious, and oppressive.

    You might also like