BERNAT VS. SANDIGAN BAYAN G.R. No. 158018. A CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE. BY C Y.

BERNAT VS. SANDIGAN BAYAN

Facts:
1. On August 14, 1991, petitioner, along with several co-accused, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
2. After arraignment and the presentation of the parties' testimonial and documentary evidence, the case was eventually submitted for decision on August 23, 1994 before the Second Division.
3. Thereafter, the case remained pending upon until the reorganization of the Sandiganbayan.
4. The case was originally assigned to Justice Godofredo Legaspi. Later, it was re-assigned to Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada upon her assumption
of office on November 3, 1998.
5. In the early part of 2002, when Justice Cortez-Estrada was writing the decision of the case, she found out that the Transcript of Stenographic Notes
(TSN) for November 26, 1993 was missing from the records turned over to her.
6. the Clerk of Court then of the Fifth Division informed the parties of this development and ordered them to attend a conference on April 19, 2002 to
discuss the matter.
7. Petitioner filed a comment manifesting that he is strongly averse to any further proceeding occasioned by the lack of stenographic notes, which contained
his cross-examination, as he should not be prejudiced by the fault or negligence of another. In the same comment, he reserved his right to file a motion
to dismiss.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition of his case was violated?

Held:

According to the supreme court, Section 16 of Article III of the Constitution guarantees the right of all persons to a "speedy disposition of their cases."
Nevertheless, this right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.7 Moreover, the determination
of whether the delays are of said nature is relative and cannot be based on a mere mathematical reckoning of time. Particular regard must be taken of the
facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.
In the present case, the petitioner only raised the violation of his right only when the lack of records of the case was found out. It is fair to assume
that he would have continued to sleep on his right – a situation amounting to LACHES – had the respondent judge not taken the initiative of determining
the non-completion of the records and ordering the remedy so she could dispose of the case.

Having found that the petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition of his case was not violated, the petition for the dismissal of the case is not granted.