Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Conde vs. Rivera

    Uploaded by

    Nancy Jermae
    97 views1 page
    Aurelia Conde, a former municipal midwife, has been charged with five crimes and misdemeanors over the past year. She has appeared in court with her witnesses and counsel eight times, but each hearing has been postponed. She has twice appealed to the Supreme Court for protection. The issue is whether Conde has been denied her right to a speedy and impartial trial. The Court held that Conde, like all accused persons, has a right to a speedy trial under Philippine law. By securing postponements for over a year without good cause, the prosecuting officer has deprived Conde of this right.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CONDE VS. RIVERA.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Aurelia Conde, a former municipal midwife, has been charged with five crimes and misdemeanors over the past year. She has appeared in court with her witnesses and counsel eight times, but each hearing has been postponed. She has twice appealed to the Supreme Court for protection. The issue is whether Conde has been denied her right to a speedy and impartial trial. The Court held that Conde, like all accused persons, has a right to a speedy trial under Philippine law. By securing postponements for over a year without good cause, the prosecuting officer has deprived Conde of this right.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    97 views1 page

    Conde vs. Rivera

    Uploaded by

    Nancy Jermae
    Aurelia Conde, a former municipal midwife, has been charged with five crimes and misdemeanors over the past year. She has appeared in court with her witnesses and counsel eight times, but each hearing has been postponed. She has twice appealed to the Supreme Court for protection. The issue is whether Conde has been denied her right to a speedy and impartial trial. The Court held that Conde, like all accused persons, has a right to a speedy trial under Philippine law. By securing postponements for over a year without good cause, the prosecuting officer has deprived Conde of this right.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CONDE VS. RIVERA [45 PHIL 650; G.R. NO.

    21741; 25 JAN 1924]

    Facts:

    Aurelia Conde, formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena, Tayabas, has been forced to respond to no less the five
    information for various crimes and misdemeanors, has appeared with her witnesses and counsel at hearings no
    less than on eight different occasions only to see the cause postponed, has twice been required to come to the
    Supreme Court for protection, and now, after the passage of more than one year from the time when the first
    information was filed, seems as far away from a definite resolution of her troubles as she was when originally
    charged.

    Issue:

    Whether or Not petitioner has been denied her right to a speedy and impartial trial.

    Held:

    Philippine organic and statutory law expressly guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall
    enjoy the right to have a speedy trial. Aurelia Conde, like all other accused persons, has a right to a speedy trial
    in order that if innocent she may go free, and she has been deprived of that right in defiance of law. We lay
    down the legal proposition that, where a prosecuting officer, without good cause, secures postponements of the
    trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this instance for more than a
    year, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of theinformation, or if
    he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.

    You might also like