cd drp presentation

8/11/2019 CD Drp Presentation

1/34

Philippines Case Decongestion

and Delay Reduction Project

Professor Rosemary Hunter

Griffith University


2/34

Case Types: Supreme Court

74% civil

From Court of Appeals

Individual/corporation vs individual/court

26% criminal

From RTCs

Individual vs People of the Philippines


3/34

Court of Appeals

From RTCs, NLRC, other quasi-judicial

agencies

46% question of fact only


4/34

68% civil

Real property, collect sum of money,

damages, certiorari Individual vs individual

32% criminal

Homicide, estafa Individual vs People of the Philippines


5/34

Court of Tax Appeals

From BIR

Corporations vs government


6/34

Sandiganbayan

Public prosecutors

Individual defendants

86% on bail


7/34

RTCs

59% civil Marriage and marital relations, adoption (Family

Courts), collect sum of money

Individuals vs individuals

41% criminal Heinous Crimes: homicide, rape

Dangerous Drugs: drugs

Family Courts: theft

Ordinary RTCs: various

Prosecution by public prosecutor


8/34

MeTCs

8% civil

Collect sum of money, damages, forcible entry

and unlawful detainer 62% plaintiffs = corporations

92% respondents = individuals

89% criminal

Bouncing checks (BP22), breach city ordinance,theft, variety of other criminal matters



9/34

MTCCs

10% civil

Collect sum of money, forcible entry

63% Ps and 98% Rs = individuals86% criminal

Gambling, theft, firearms/weapons +variety of other criminal matters

Few bouncing checks



10/34

MTCs

11% civil

Collect sum of money

Ps = individual/corporations Rs = individuals

86% criminal

Bouncing checks, physical injuries, theft + variety

of other criminal matters

Prosecution mostly by public prosecutor, 22% by

police/peace officer


11/34

MCTCs

14% civil Collect sum of money

Ps = individuals/corporations

Rs = individuals

77% criminal Physical injuries, gambling, theft + variety of other

criminal matters

Not bouncing checks

53% of prosecutions by police/peace officer(shorter duration)


12/34

Case Durations

Sandiganbayan had longest cases

Superior court cases also lengthy

Then some first level courts

Most medians and all 90thpercentiles

far exceed international benchmarks


13/34

Supre

me-d

ecide

d

Supre

me-reso

lved

CA CTA

Sandiga

nbay

an

RTCc

ivil

RTCc

rimina

l

MetC

civil

MetC

crimina

l

MTCC

civil

MTCC

crim

inal

MTCc

ivil

MTCc

rimina

l

MCTC

civil

MCTC

crim

inal

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Median Duration (years) 90th Percentile (years)


14/34

Court Median Duration (years) 90th Percentile (years)

Supreme - decided 3.2 7.7

Supreme - resolved 0.5 1.4CA 2.6 7.4

CTA 2.6 4.5

Sandiganbayan 6.6 9.2

RTC civil 1.1 3.6

RTC criminal 0.75 3.3

MetC civil 0.66 2.6

MetC criminal 1 5.5

MTCC civil 1.3 4.6

MTCC criminal 0.4 2.3MTC civil 0.67 2.6

MTC criminal 1.1 3.5

MCTC civil 0.95 6.5

MCTC criminal 0.5 4


15/34

Longest Phase of Case

Criminal casestrials

Civil casesfiling to pre-trial

Longest phase in criminal cases longer

than longest phase in civil cases


16/34

Court Longest Phase Median Duration

CTA Hearing 1.4 years

Sandiganbayan Trial 2.4 yearsRTC civil Filing to Pre-trial 3.5 months

RTC criminal Trial 8.5 months

MeTC civil Up to trial 3.5 months

(no data on trial times)

MeTC criminal Filing to Arraignment 3 months

(no data on trial times)

MTCC civil Up to trial 4.5 months

(no data on trial times, but only 11 trials)

MTCC criminal Trial 1 year MTC civil Filing to Pre-trial 7 months

MTC criminal Trial 4 months

MCTC civil Filing to Pre-trial 3.7 months

MCTC criminal Trial 13.6 months


17/34

Court Median Decision Time Constitutional limit Over Limit

Supreme Court 4.5 months 24 months 12%

Court of Appeal 22.8 months 24 months 47%CTA 6 months

Sandiganbayan 8 months

RTC civil 2 months 3 months 28%

RTC criminal 42 days 3 months 24%

MeTC civil 40 days 3 months 25%

MeTC criminal 78 days (n=15) 3 months 33% n=5

MTCC civil 15 days 3 months 8%

MTCC criminal 31 days (n=10) 3 months 10% n=1

MTC civil 54 days (n=17) 3 months 29% n=5MTC criminal 28 days (n=13) 3 months 38% n=5

MCTC civil 25 days 3 months 20%

MCTC criminal 58 days (n=16) 3 months 25% n=4


18/34

Hearing Dates and

PostponementsAverage no. of hearing dates < 5 inmost courts

23%-51% of scheduled hearing datespostponed

Low trial rates in first level courts

outside NCRRelationship between trial rate, no.hearing dates and case duration?


19/34


20/34

Postponements

Shortage of prosecutors

non-appearance of prosecution major

reason for postponements in RTC

All first level courts (in MTC and MCTC

includes police/peace officers)


21/34

Shortage of public attorneys

non-appearance of public attorney a

major reason for postponements only in CTA

MCTC criminal cases


22/34

Shortage of lawyers

non-appearance of counsel a major

reason for postponements in CTA

Sandiganbayan, RTC, MCTC criminal

cases (includes counsel de oficio) MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC civil cases


23/34

Lawyers appearing unprepared

Counsel unable to proceed a major

reason for postponements only in CTA

Sandiganbayan


24/34

Witnesses dont appear

Non-appearance of witnesses a major

cause of postponements in CTA

Sandiganbayan

RTC criminal cases


25/34

Private complainants unwilling to

proceed

non-appearance of private complainanta major reason for postponements only

in

MeTC criminal cases

+ Almost never a reason for archiving


26/34

Suggested reasons for delay that did not

cause many postponements

Non-service of warrants

Notice to appear not received in time

Unavailability of police witnesses

Shortage of forensic/medical experts


27/34

Additional causes of postponements

Unavailability of judge

RTC, MCTC, MeTC criminal cases

Non-appearance of party

Sandiganbayan, MeTC, MCTC, RTC civil

cases


28/34

Other causes of delay

BP22 cases

30% of MeTC criminal cases, 14% of MTCcriminal cases, otherwise not prominent

Where testable, BP22 cases involved morecases per file, larger amounts in issue, morearrest warrants, more hearing dates, more

postponements, and more motions than othercriminal cases, and were more likely toinvolve a pre-trial hearing, a trial, and to bewithdrawn


29/34

Jurisdictional distribution in RTCs

Cases in Heinous Crime Courts took

longest to finalise

Civil cases in ordinary RTCs and

Dangerous Drug courts also lengthy

33% defendants in Family Courtcriminal cases were juveniles


30/34


31/34

Court Settled Decided For P/Appellant For R/Appellee Dismissed

Supreme Court 0% 100% 11% 89% 0%

Court of Appeals 0% 99% 78% 16% 0%

CTA 0% 100% 73% 16% 0%RTC 12% 82% 73% 12% 11%

MeTC 21% 71% 72% 19% 9%

MTCC 36% 57% 77% 16% 7%

MTC 40% 55% 87% 4% 9%MCTC 32% 65% 74% 24% 0%


32/34

OutcomesCriminal Cases

Highest rate of guilty pleas = 40% in RTCs

and MTCCs; only 1% guilty pleas in

SandiganbayanVery few conviction decisions in first level

courts: 3-16%

Highest overall conviction rate (including

guilty pleas) = 56% in RTCs; lowest = 9% inMTCs; Sandiganbayan = 22%


33/34

Court Guilty Plea Withdrawn Decided Convicted/ Acquitted/ Dismissed Overall Overall

Appeal Appeal Conviction Fruitless

Dismissed Upheld Rate Prosecutions

Supreme Court 100% 50% 50%

Court of Appeals 100% 14% 86%

Sandiganbayan 1% 99% 21% 77% 1% 22%

RTC 39% 14% 46% 37% 31% 32% 56% 29%

MeTC 13% 33% 54% 4% 12% 84% 15% 78%

MTCC 40% 36% 24% 16% 10% 74% 44% 54%

MTC 8% 46% 36% 3% 22% 75% 9% 73%

MCTC 31% 40% 29% 16% 18% 64% 36% 59%


34/34

1/3 or more cases in first level courtswithdrawn

64-84% of decided cases in first levelcourts dismissed

Total rate of fruitless prosecutions infirst level courts = 54-78%

Not accounted for by preliminaryinvestigations

cd drp presentation

Documents