G.R. No. 218040 - JUANITO VICTOR C. REMULLA, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) AND ERINEO S. MALIKSI.

Ruling

Accordingly, he has no legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case against Maliksi on the ground of violation of the right to a speedy disposition of his case. The right to a speedy disposition of cases is a relative concept The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to a speedy trial, [27] is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed. [28] More than a decade after the 1972 leading U.S. case of Barker v. Wingo [29] was promulgated, this Court, in Martin v. Ver , [30] began adopting the "balancing test" to determine whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of cases has been violated. As this test necessarily compels the courts to approach such cases on an ad hoc basis, the conduct of both the prosecution and defendant are weighed apropos the four-fold factors, to wit: (1) length of the delay; (2) reason for the delay; (3) defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to defendant resulting from the delay. None of these elements, however, is either a necessary or sufficient condition; they are related and must be considered together with other relevant circumstances. These factors have no talismanic qualities as courts must still engage in.a difficult and sensitive balancing process. [31] In this case, Remulla argues that the cases of Tilendo, Guerrero, Bernat , and Tello dictate that it is mandatory for a respondent or accused to actively assert his right to a speedy disposition of his case before it may be dismissed on the said ground. He insists that Maliksi failed to follow up on his case during the preliminary investigation, hence, he cannot invoke his right to a speedy disposition of his case. Further, he avers that the doctrine in Coscolluela , where the Court held that there was no need for the respondent to follow up his case, is not controlling and it is only applicable when the respondent is completely unaware of the preliminary investigation against him. To resolve these issues, the first set of cases cited by Remulla must be examined to determine whether it is mandatory for a respondent or accused to assert his right to a speedy disposition of his case. Also, the case of Coscolluela and its related cases must be evaluated whether the respondent or accused has the obligation to follow up his case. Tilendo, Guerrero, Bernat, and Tello cases In Tilendo , the petitioner therein invoked his right to a speedy disposition of his case because the prel