CAUSES OF DELAY IN THE PROSECUTION OF

AN ACCUSED
 CHAPTER 2

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Foreign Literature

In the book published in 2015 Factors Associated with Delays of Days to Decades to

Criminal Prosecutions of Child Sexual Abuse. Until the latter part of the 20th century, legal

doctrines made it almost impossible to successfully prosecute in criminal court a case involving

child sexual abuse (CSA), whether the complaint was timely or delayed. Many English-speaking

countries have abrogated most formal legal barriers to prosecuting CSA cases, and courts are faced

with the singular challenge of adjudicating sexual offenses against children that are reported to have

happened years or decades earlier. We conducted analyses of 4,237 criminal complaints of CSA

heard in Canadian criminal courts. There were several differences between timely and delayed

prosecutions that led us to conclude that delayed prosecutions of CSA are common and due, in part,

to the nature of the offense. Offense duration was associated with longer delays to prosecution.

When the accused had access to the child through his position in the community, length of delay to

prosecution was very long, particularly for male complainants. More research is needed on delayed

CSA prosecutions, particularly given an apparent trend for jurisdictions to abolish barriers to

criminal prosecutions of CSA that occurred years or decades earlier.

The District Attorney’s office of Santa Clara County, California has observed long

durations for their prosecution processes. It is interested in assessing the drivers of prosecutorial

delays and determining whether there is evidence of disparate treatment of accused individuals in

pre-trial detention and criminal charging practices. A recent report from the county’s civil grand

jury found that only 47% of cases from 2013 were resolved in less than year, far less than the stat

wide average of 88%. We describe a visualization tool and analytical models to identify factors

affecting delays in the prosecutorial process and any characteristics that are associated with

disparate treatment of defendants. Using prosecutorial data from January through June of 2014, we
find that the time to close the initial phase of prosecution (the entering of a plea), the initial plea

entered, the type of court in which a defendant is tried and the main charged offense are important

predictors of whether a case will extend beyond one year. Durations for prosecution are found not

significantly different for different racial and ethnic population, and do not appear as important

features in our modeling to predict case durations longer than one year. Further, we find that, in this

data, 81% of felony cases were resolved in less than one year, far greater than the value reported by

the civil grand jury.

Local Literature

Narag (2017) Understanding Factors Related to Prolonged Trial of Detained

Defendants in the Philippines. Utilizing a combination of jail official data and qualitative data

gathered through Focus Group Discussions and interviews with inmates, court actors, and jail

officers, this article investigates the factors related to prolonged trial of detained defendants in the

Philippines. Sensitizing concepts derived from Western literature are utilized to understand

individual, court, and jail-level variations to prolonged detention. Results from official jail data

show the magnitude and extent of the problem. The narrative data suggests the salience of

organizational and cultural dynamics that lead to the delay of cases for detained defendants.

Specifically, courts that are loosely coupled and subscribe to workgroup culture that condones

leniency are more likely to be delayed. Implications to theory and policy are discussed.

According to Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution all persons

shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or

administrative bodies. This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings

but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all

proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord, any party to a case may demand

expeditious action from all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice. Notably, it is

settled that the right to speedy disposition of cases should be understood to be a relative or flexible
concept such that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient.

Pertinent jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are

attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the

trial are asked for and secured; or even without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is

allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Hence, in the determination of whether the

defendant has been denied his right to a speedy disposition of a case, the following factors may be

considered and balanced: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion

or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay. In this

regard, the Court laid down the parameters in establishing the existence of inordinate delay, which,

in turn, is conclusive as to whether or not the aforesaid right was violated, to wit:

To summarize, inordinate delay in the resolution and termination of a preliminary

investigation violates the accused's right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases, and may

result in the dismissal of the case against the accused. The burden of proving delay depends on

whether delay is alleged within the periods provided by law or procedural rules. If the delay is

alleged to have occurred during the given periods, the burden is on the respondent or the accused to

prove that the delay was inordinate. If the delay is alleged to have occurred beyond the given

periods, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the delay was reasonable under the

circumstances and that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.

The determination of whether the delay was inordinate is not through mere mathematical

reckoning but through the examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Courts

should appraise a reasonable period from the point of view of how much time a competent and

independent public officer would need in relation to the complexity of a given case. If there has

been delay, the prosecution must be able to satisfactorily explain the reasons for such delay and that

no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result. The timely invocation of the accused's

constitutional rights must also be examined on a case-to-case basis.

December 1, 2000) Rights of Accused. Section 1. Rights of accused at trial. – In all criminal

prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: (a) To be presumed innocent until

the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the

accusation against him. (c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the

proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive

his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is

specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without

justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be

present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his

right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the

accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he

can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel. (d) To testify as a witness in his

own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence

shall not in any manner prejudice him. (e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness

against himself. (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party

may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or cannot with

due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in

another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter,

the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him. (g) To have compulsory process

issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf. (h) To

have speedy, impartial and public trial. (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and, in the manner,

prescribed by law.
Foreign Studies

In the study of Md. Ishaq Majumder (2018) Delay in Criminal Cases of Bangladesh:

A Critical Analysis. One of the key constraints facing the criminal judiciary is the huge case backlog

in criminal trial system. The backlog is placing considerable pressure on the court system which is

hampering access to justice and rule of law. It is also symptomatic of a number of other issues, due

to lack of adequate resources and qualified staff, limited budgets and inadequate Infrastructure and

logistical support, including complex procedures and a lack of effective case management. Often

there are unnecessary delays in adjudicating Cases and enforcing judgments. In so jurisdictions,

millions of criminal cases are pending that’s take up to a decade to be completed. I will try to

discuss about the causes of delay in the Administration of Criminal Justice. It’s impact on Judiciary.

Another problem faced by the criminal trial system of Bangladesh is of malicious prosecution and

bogus cases. Malicious prosecution is a false and malicious accusation against an innocent person

without reasonable and/or probable cause. It may take several forms. A person can falsely institute

an untrue criminal complaint against another party. These untrue complaints can hindrance the

victim of the malicious claims to be subject to a criminal trial or a criminal investigation. A person

can also bring a false tort claim against any Party. However, the number of courts involved in the

system has not been increased sufficiently. Variety of criminal cases is filed every day. But courts

are limited. Under the circumstance, it is necessary to enhance the number of courts for speedy

disposal of the cases filed every day. An insufficient number of judges to handle so many cases and

also the dual role of the judges in dealing both in civil and criminal cases lead the court to divide the

days for both criminal and civil cases. The total numbers of judges are not adequate to clear the

backlog of cases. It is not possible even to dispose of the actual fresh institution. Rotation and

Transfer of the judges, often meaning that the same judge who heard testimony may not decide the

dispute, taking away thereby much of his initiative to push forward the proceedings to judgment and

seriously impeding the process of continuous trial; the new judge may have to repeat some of the

procedural requirements already finished. One of the great evils haunting the lower courts and
prosecution system in Bangladesh is corruption. Irregular procedures and corrupt practices thrive in

a system that is not transparent, where information on case load is not readily available, and, where

the respective justice agencies are not applying the principles of communication, cooperation, and

coordination, and where the processing of cases is slow. The poor and vulnerable suffer the most in

such a system since they do not have the means to afford the processes. Bribery and nepotism are

widespread in police and court staff. There are several examples of lack of transparency and

accountability in judiciary due to political biasness The staff, judges and prosecution lawyers all are

blamed by the public as either corrupt and/or bribed. The Police also share the same label. partly due

to overstretched and underfunded judicial systems, corruptions endemic within police forces and

prosecution corps, and amongst judicial officials. When cannot afford to pay requested bribes for

services that should be free, their claims and cases are delayed, denied or discontinued. In a survey

Very few of the household respondents (6%) and in court respondents (10%) fully agree that the

judiciary is free from corruption.

In the study of Arusha Gopaul (2015) The Impact and Constitutionality of delayed

trials on the rights of a suspect or accused person during criminal proceedings. The Constitution of

the Republic of South Africa guarantees every person a fair trial; the right to a fair trial right trial

must begin and conclude within a reasonable time and without undue delay. Internationally the same

guarantees and protections are available to unconvict suspects. However, the South African criminal

justice system lacks behind internationally and falls short of promoting these guarantees.

Investigation was done on delays in commencing and finalizing trials in light of constitutional

provisions, the consequence and the impact of the delay with discussion on prison conditions and

overcrowding with reference to the Constitution, legislation and case law. Delayed trial, prison

overcrowding and poor prison conditions are still an issue in South Africa and there needs to be

positive change to enforce and practice prescribed directives. South Africa’s justice system through

its servants, need to do more to gain a higher status of having a constitutionally democratic country

that fully promotes‟ rights of detainees.

delays in relation to the Local, District and Supreme Courts of NSW. Delay has been a long-

standing concern to the courts and successive NSW Governments. The operation of an efficient and

effective court system is crucial to the administration of justice and delays are a significant obstacle

to achieving these goals. Innumerable legislative and administrative initiatives have been undertaken

over the years, and while many have been successful in their specific aims, court delay is an

ongoing problem, not least of all because the causes of delay are not static. Because of the number

and diversity of the causes of delay, addressing the problem of court delay is not straightforward.

Measures include: increased, and efficient use of, court resources; court management initiatives

which have a flow on effect on delays; case management; simplification of legal procedures;

the recent Local Court reform Acts; and others. Some measures such as the court management

initiatives are broad in scope and ongoing, while others are designed to fix specific problems

causing delays and once implemented are complete.

Local Studies

In the study of Atty. Severino H. Gaña Jr. (2014) JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE

DENIED: ENSURING EFFICIENT AND SPEEDY CRIMINAL TRIALS IN THE PHILIPPINES

The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the case against him was

designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal prosecution suspended over

him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the administration of justice by mandating the

courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases. Such right to a speedy trial

and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,

capricious and oppressive delays. The inquiry as to whether or not an accused has been denied such

right is not susceptible by precise qualification. The concept of a speedy disposition is a relative

term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. 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

delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures rights to the accused, but it does not preclude the

rights of public justice. Also, it must be borne in mind that the rights given to the accused by the

Constitution and the Rules of Court are shields, not weapons; hence, courts are to give meaning to

that intent. The proverbial saying “justice delayed is justice denied” is often quoted by lawyers not

only in the Philippines but also in other countries to demand speedy disposition of criminal cases.

The negative repercussion of this saying, however, is that some individuals give premium to speed

rather than justice. Some use the saying to justify the pace of the trial that contravenes the notion of

fairness. On the other hand, some individuals equate speed with undue haste that offends the due

process rights of accused persons. One thing is for sure; the word “speedy” should never be

divorced from the word justice. For speedy justice means that justice must be rendered efficiently.

In the study of Buena Bernal (2015), Case delay worst barrier to justice in key PH

cities. In the Philippines, the lack of state prosecutors and the heavy volume of caseload for courts

also add to delays in case resolution. State figures from 2005-2010 show lower courts were

confronted with an annual average caseload of more than one million – equivalent to an average of

around 4,221 cases per working day. In 2012, SC Justice Antonio Carpio wrote in a column for

Rappler that 21% of trials take 2 to 5 years to finish, while 13% take more than 5 years. The

judiciary, he said, does not fully comply with constitutionally-prescribed case disposition timelines

of "not more than 24 months for the Supreme Court, not more than 12 months for all other appellate

courts, and not more than 3 months for all other lower courts."

Relevance of the Reviewed Literature and Studies to the Present Study

sense that both are discussing the causes of delay in the prosecution of an accused.