By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
Despite years spent defending clients who are either in or out of jail, it is still hard for this columnist to imagine what the accused in a case must endure while in detention. What one undergoes during a criminal trial is unenviable even as tales of their pitiable conditions in jail are heart-rending.
What is the remedy of an accused who faces a trial that stretches a long time like a decade, for instance?
Sec. 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides for the remedy known as habeas corpus. Shunning legalese, habeas corpus means to produce the body of the person detained. It is directed at the authorities in charge of the detention to explain the legal basis for the same. If the court finds that there is no sound legal justification, it must order the release of the detained person.
In jurisprudence however, there are nuances on the nature of the proceedings which occasioned the delay in respect to what kind of relief the court can provide in its order.
If the delay is during a preliminary investigation before the prosecutor or the Office of Ombudsman, the entire case can be dismissed pursuant to the rulings in Campa, G.R. No. 250504, July 12, 2021 and Daep, G.R. No. 244649. June 14, 2021.
This new year, however, the Supreme Court ruled that when the delay takes place during a court trial, the accused who is detained for a non-bailable offense may be released from detention, but the case must continue.
In Jessica Lucila G. Reyes v. Director or Whoever Is In-Charge of Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila, JCInsp. Wena Fe Dalagan, Warden, Taguig City Jail Female Dormitory, G.R. No. 254838, which was handed down on January 17, 2023, it was concluded that nine (9) years of detention while awaiting the final resolution of the case against the accused Jessica Lucila G. Reyes is unreasonable and thus violative of her constitutional right to a speedy disposition of her case or speedy trial (Art. III, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution).
Both in Campa and Daep, the cases were dismissed altogether. By contrast, in Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, the accused was only ordered released from detention but the case was ordered to continue.
How come?
It must be stressed that as a rule habeas corpus is not available when the detention is undergirded by a valid charge filed in court.
So when the preliminary investigation either before the prosecutor or Office of the Ombudsman, is saddled by inordinate delay, the respondent/ accused must invoke his/ her right to a speedy disposition of cases before the prosecutor or the Office of the Ombudsman if the preliminary investigation is still pending.
Once the case is lodged in court, the accused can move for dismissal before the judge on the ground of violation of his/ her right to a speedy disposition of cases/ speedy trial as delay mired the conduct of the preliminary investigation that preceded it.
Yet when the delay begins only after the charge is filed in court, for reasons that can be allocated on the prosecution, not the accused, then the latter can file a motion for release from detention on the same ground of violation of his/ her right to a speedy disposition of cases/ speedy trial. Here, the case itself must continue.
In any case, what is being preserved is one’s right to liberty. (And perhaps, also one’s sanity, as a glacial-paced criminal proceedings could torment one into insanity).
Indeed, liberty is a prized-right. While persons who stand trial for serious crimes may be deprived of liberty pending trial, yet they too have constitutional rights that must be reckoned, respected and even championed.
Given that the persons detained are yet to be convicted, they are still presumed innocent. Thus they must be allowed their limited freedom in the company of their loved ones and the comforts of their homes during trial. It is troubling enough that they are facing a possible jail time on account of the criminal case; it is worse when they are facing the possibility of imprisonment as a sentence while already in jail.
In the famous case against Leopold and Loeb, where they were perceived to be guilty as sin for the killing of another youth, Clarence Darrow pleaded against the imposition of the death penalty and entreated: “I am pleading for the future; I am pleading for a time when hatred and cruelty will not control the hearts of men. When we can learn by reason and judgment and understanding and faith that all life is worth saving, and that mercy is the highest attribute of man”.
And not only in cases of the gruesome kind such as that in Leopold and Loeb; but in any case for that matter, where the accused is deprived of liberty, humanity itself is also on trial.
To be absolved of the indictment, we must be sure that our criminal proceedings are humane.
(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
