Practice question
An accused participated in lengthy litigation, requested numerous postponements and first asserted delay only after an adverse judgment, without filing the appropriate motion when applicable periods elapsed. The claim cites Sarigumba’s rejection of a duty to chase COMELEC as an automatic rule that timing and the accused’s own conduct never matter. Which response best respects the decisions through June 2026?
- Sarigumba abolished every timeliness inquiry forever
- Marcos’s June 2026 main decision examined those contextual and invocation facts, so the quoted no-follow-up principle is not a universal answer to every different case
- Every accused-caused postponement is prosecutorial inaction
- The cases require only subtraction of years
- Any adverse judgment proves unconstitutional delay
Legal references
- People v. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, G.R. Nos. 243402–08, June 10, 2026, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70586; speedy-trial and disposition discussion.
- Sarigumba v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 263615, August 19, 2025, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70155
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.