Here, there was no allegation or proof that such interests were compromised by the delay, except for the extended period of anxiety and embarrassment. Such prolonged agony, however, is not a veritable ground to tilt the scales of justice in petitioners' favor.[58] Petitioners are reasonably expected to endure such predicaments of the protracted criminal prosecution since their course of action engendered it. Moreover, "not every claim of anxiety [or embarrassment] affords the accused a ground to decry a violation of the rights to speedy disposition of cases and to speedy trial"[59] since such emotional and social difficulties are typical consequences of criminal indictments.

In People v. Sandiganbayan,[60] we required that the anxiety be shown to be of such "nature and degree that it becomes oppressive, unnecessary [,] and notoriously disproportionate to the nature of the criminal charge."[61] There is no such showing in this case. Truth be told, instead of impairing petitioners' cause, the delay actually afforded the defense opportunities to complete its evidence.

Too, petitioners were fully aware of the delay in the resolution of their motions, but they remained passive and exerted no meaningful efforts to protect their rights to speedy disposition of cases and/or speedy trial that they are invoking before this Court for the first time. In this regard, the Court is not unaware that the silence of the accused during the period of delay cannot be easily construed as a waiver or surrender of the right to speedy disposition of cases or speedy trial.[62] Indeed, the actual intention to relinquish the right must be shown.[63] But here, not only did petitioners show no remonstration, they in fact actively participated in the proceedings by complying with the delayed resolutions/orders without raising any constitutional infraction against the Sandiganbayan, indicating their acquiescence to the delay. Petitioners' renunciation of the right is further demonstrated when they asked for. more time to comply with the Sandiganbayan Order despite it being presently argued as already behind time. In other words, petitioners were well aware of the delay in the proceedings, but their indifference with the passage of time is clearly manifested by their actions.

Considering that the delay was mainly attributable to petitioners, their overt acts positively demonstrated their renunciation of the rights to speedy disposition of case and speedy trial. More importantly, the delay did not result in any significant prejudice to petitioners, hence, we find that the delay was not arbitrary, vexatious, or oppressive and seasonably objected to.

Therefore, we cannot grant the "radical relief"[64] of dismissing the criminal cases outright on the ground of inordinate delay. Apropos is our pronouncement in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[65] viz.:

While the Constitution guarantees the right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases, this constitutional right is not a magical invocation which can be cunningly used by the accused for his or her advantage. This right is not a last line of remedy when accused find themselves on the losing end of the proceedings. The State's duty to prosecute cases is just as equally important and cannot be disregarded at the whim of the accused, especially when it appears that the contention was raised as a mere afterthought.[66] (Emphasis supplied)We, thus, proceed to the substantive matters. (ISMAEL et al. vs. People, G.R. Nos. 234435-36. February 06, 2023)

LOPEZ, M., J.

the end