Sec. 9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within the time limit. – If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by Section 1(g), Rule 116 and Section 1, as extended by Section 6 of this Rule, the information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of proving the motion but the prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence to establish the exclusion of time under section 3 of this rule. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.
IF THE ACCUSED ISNT BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT REQUIRED, WHAT IS THE REMEDY?
The accused should move to dismiss the information, on a motion nolle prosequi, on the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial
He shall have the burden of proving the motion, but the prosecution shall have the burden or proving that the delay was covered by the allowed exclusions of time
If the complaint or information is dismissed, the accused can plead double jeopardy to a subsequent prosecution
The accused must move to dismiss before actually going to trial. Otherwise, it is a waiver of the right to dismiss
Sec. 10. Law on speedy trial not a bar to provision on speedy trial in the Constitution. – No provision of law on speedy trial and no rule implementing the same shall be interpreted as a bar to any
charge of denial of the right to speedy trial guaranteed by Section 14(2), Article III, of the 1987 Constitution.
N.B: The constitutional provision is broad while the law on speedy trial is more specific and gives effectivity to the constitutional provision.