Case Digest - focusing on Admissibility of DNA evidence in the Supreme Court of the Philippines.Full description
People vs AmaguinFull description
John Dy vs PeopleFull description
People v Acierto case digestFull description
People Yatar EvidenceFull description
Article VIII
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: 4. Order a change of o f venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. People vs. Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172
In 1!"# a group of armed persons set fire to various inha$ited houses in Ora Centro and Ora %ste# $oth in &anta'# Ilocos Sur. The prosecutors charged 1! men# together with () other unidentified persons# with the crime of arson# at the Court of *irst Instance of +igan# Ilocos Sur. The Secretar' of ,ustice issued -dministrative -dministrative Order o. ))/# authorizin ,udge 0utierre to transfer the criminal cases to the Circuit Criminal Court# 2in the interest of justice and pu rsuant to 3- 51!# as implemented $' $ ' -O )5( and )!4. The prosecution invoed the -dministrative -dministrative Orders# since the witnesses refused to testif' in the court co urt sitting in +igan# Ilocos Sur# where the' felt their lives would $e endangered: • •
•
a$out () of the armed men are still unidentified and at large one of the accused# +incent Crisologo# $elongs to an influential famil' in the province# son of the Congressman for the *irst 6istrict of Ilocos Sur and of the lad' 0overnor the promotion and confirmation of ,udge 0utierre from Cler of Court to ,udge of the Court of *irst Instance was activel' supported $' Congressman and 0overnor Crisologo# parents of accused +incent +incent Crisologo
The accused vigorousl' opposed such transfer. The respondent judge declined the transfer sought# on the ground that -dministrative Order o. ))/ merel' authoried the court $elow# $ut !i! not re"uire or co##an! it # to transfer the cases in 7uestion# and denied that the circumstances justified an' such transfer. The prosecution resorted to the Supreme Court for writs of certiorari and mandamus# so the cases ma' $ e tried either at 8a 9nion or &aguio Cit'. Issues :
1. hether hether the Secretar' Secretar' of ,ustice ,ustice has the the power to determi determine ne what court court should should hear specific cases ). hether hether the Supreme Supreme Court Court could could transfe transferr the trial trial to to another another place ;. hether hether the circumst circumstances ances warrant warrant a transf transfer er of the trial trial to another another place place $ecision : ,udge 0utierre was correct in regarding the -dministrative Orders as merel' director' rather than mandator'# $ut he erred in den'ing that the circumstances justified the transfer.
1. The Secretar' Secretar' of ,usti ,ustice ce has no power power to determine determine what what court should hear hear specific specific cases. cases. -n' such power trenches upon the time it would endanger the rights and immunities of the accused or civil part'. It could $e a means of predetermining the outcome of individual cases# so as to produce a result in harmon' harmon ' with the -dministration?s preferences.
). ,udicial power connotes certain inci!ental an! inherent attri%utes reasona%l& necessar& 'or an e''ective a!#inistration o' (ustice . The courts 2can $' appropriate means do all things necessar' to preserve and maintain ever' 7ualit' needful to mae the judiciar' an effective institution of government. One of these incidental and inherent powers of courts is that of trans'errin the trial o' cases from one court to another of e7ual ran in a neigh$oring site# whenever the imperative of securing a fair and impartial trial# or of preventing a #iscarriae o' (ustice # so demands. @ence# the Supre#e Court possesses inherent po)er an! (uris!iction to transfer the trial and disposition of a case from one court to another. A Note: this case occurred $efore the 1(! ConstitutionB ;. In this case there are sufficient and ade7uate reasons for the transfer of the hearing of the criminal cases to another place in the interest of truth and justice. The fear e=pressed $' the witnesses cannot $e considered fanciful and unfounded when account is taen of the circumstances. Such refusal necessitates transferring the place of trial to a site outside of Ilocos Sur# if the State is to $e given a fair chance to present its side of the case The re7uirements for proper jurisdiction have $een satisfied $' the filing of the criminal case in 7uestion with the Court of *irst Instance of Ilocos Sur# in which province the offenses charged were committed. The holding of the trial in a particular place is more a matter of venue# rather than jurisdiction. Secon!ar& *otes+
The respondents vigorousl' contend that a transfer of the trial site cannot $e made# $ecause it is a long
the jurisdiction of a Court of *irst Instance in the hilippines is limited to certain well
the purpose of the rule invoed $' accused respondents was 2not toD cause Athe defendantB great inconvenience in looing for his witnesses and other evidence in another place. here the convenience of the accused is opposed $' that of the prosecution# as in the case at $ar# it is $ut logical that the court shoul! have po)er to !eci!e )here the %alance o' convenience or inconvenience lies # and to !eter#ine the #ost suita%le place o' the trial according to the e=igencies of truth and impartial justice. The purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice. It is just a means to an end.