5. Olbes v.

Buemio
G.R. No. 173319
December 4, 2009
Key Take-Away: Principle of Speedy Trial is a relative term
(Bulleted because dates are important in this case)

FACTS:
Samir and Rowena Muhsen filed a complaint against petitioner Frederico Miguel Olbes.
Olbes was then indicted for Grave Coercion before the MeTC of Manila, Branch 22, by
Information dated June 28, 2002.

 October 28, 2002: Olbes posted bail and was released.

 Judge Hipolito dela Vega denied Olbes’s motion to defer or suspend his arraignment in
light of his pending petition for review before the DoJ from the City Fiscal’s esolution
R
finding probable case.
 February 12, 2003: Judge dela Vega then proceeded with Olbes’s arraignment in which
Olbes pleaded not guilty to the charge.
 May 28, 2003: pre-trial was set to this date. BUT it was declared a non-working holiday
due to the occurrence of typhoon Chedeng.
 October 23, 2003: Pre-trial reset to this date. Olbes failed to appear thus prompting the
trial court to issue a warrant for his arrest. The warrant was later recalled on discovery
that neither Olbes nor his counsel was notified of said schedule.
 January 21, 2004: Pre-trial was reset again to this date.
 November 3, 2003/ before pre-trial: Olbes filed a Motion to Dismiss the Information on
the ground of violation of his right to a speedy trial under RA 8493 or the Speedy Trial
Act of 1998 and the Supreme Court Circular (SCC) No. 38-98. Olbes insists that
considering that he was not —without any fault on his part— brought to trial within 80
days from the date he was arraigned, this case should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 119,
Sec. 9 in relation to Rule 119, Sec. 6 of the Rules.
 December 5, 2003: Respondent Judge Danilo A. Buemio denied Olbes’s Motion to
Dismiss holding that Olbes played a big part in the delay of the case and that technical
rules of procedure were meant to secure,not override, substantial justice.
 March 3, 2004: Olbes’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied after Buemio noted that
during Olbes’s arraignment, Olbes interposedno objection to the setting of the pre-trial to
May 28, 2003 and that given the volume of the cases filed with the MeTC, strict
compliance with the Speedy Trial Act was improbable. Buemia also ruled that the term
“speedy trial” as applied in criminal cases is a relative term such that the trial and
disposition of cases depended on several factors including theavailability of counsel,
witnesses and prosecutor, and weather conditions.
 Olbes challenged Buemio’s orders via certiorari and prohibition before the RTC of
Manila, alleging that not only was he (Olbes) not brought to trial within 80 days from the
date of his arraignment as required under Sec. 6, Rule 119, but the prosecution had failed
to establish the existence of any of the “time exclusions” provided under Sec. 3 of the
same Rule to excuse its failure to bring him to trial within the 80 day period.
 January 31, 2006: the RTC denied the petition, holding that (1) Sec. 9 of Rule 119 of the
Rules of Court does not call for the automatic dismissal of a case just because trial has
not commenced within 80 days from arraignment; (2) that the proceedings before the
MeTC were not attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays; (3) that the
concept of a speedy trial is not a mere question of numbers that could be computed in
terms of years, months or days; and (4) that in “determining whether petitioner’s right to
 speedy trial was violated,”the circumstances that Buemio was thepairing judge of Br.
22 of the MeTC who “may be assumed also to preside over his own regular court and
devotes limited time to his pairing court” and that first level courts in Manila have an
excessive load of cases should also be taken into consideration.

Thus, this present petition for review.

ISSUES:
1. W/N Olbes’s right to speedy trial is violated

HELD/RATIO:
1. NO, “speedy trial” is a relative term.
Olbes draws attention to the time gapof 105 days from his arraignment on February 12,
2003 up to the first pretrial setting on May 28, 2003, and another gap of 148 days from the latter
date up to the second pretrial setting on October 23, 2003 or for a total of 253 days —a clear
contravention, according to Olbes, of the 80day time limit from arraignment to trial.However,
on his arraignment on February 12, 2003, Olbes interposedno objection to the setting of the
pretrial to May 28, 2003 which was, as earlier stated, later declared a non working day.
Inarguably, the cancellation of the scheduled pretrial on that date was beyond the control of the
trial court.
Olbes further argues that the lapse of 253 days (from arraignment to October 23, 2003)
was not justified by any of the excusable delays as embodied in the time exclusions specified
under Section 3 of Rule 119. The argument isunavailing.
The principle of speedy trial is a relative term and necessarily involves a degree of
flexibility. Thus, in spite of the prescribed time limits, jurisprudence continues to adopt the view
that the concept of speedy trial is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept and
that while justice is administered with dispatch, the essential ingredient is orderly, expeditious,
and not mere speed. It cannot be definitely said how long is too long in a system where justice is
supposed to be swift, but deliberate. It is consistent with the delays and depends upon
circumstances. It secures rights to the accused, but it doesnot preclude the rights of public justice
hence, a balancing test of applying societal interests and the rights of the accused necessarily
compels the court to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis.
In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition
of the case and to a speedy trial, four factors must be considered: (a) length of delay; (b) the
reason for the delay; (c) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (d) prejudice to the defendant.
Moreover, the time limits set by theSpeedy Trial Act of 1998 do not preclude justifiable

postponements and delays when so warranted by the situation.

Wherefore, the petition is DENIED.

Prepared by: Aira Marie M. Andal