Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. No. 01-7-453-RTC : September 16, 2008] RE- REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF ARRAIGNMENT AND TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING SUSPECTED ABU SAYAFF GROUP (ASG) MEMBERS AND OTHER ASG RELATED CASES FROM ZAMBOANGA CITY TO ANOTHER LOCATION, MARIA CLARA I. LOBREGAT, IN HER CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ZAMBOANGA. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated September 16, 2008

"A.M. No. 01-7-453-RTC. Re- Request for Transfer of Arraignment and Trial of Criminal Cases Involving Suspected Abu Sayaff Group (ASG) Members and Other ASG Related Cases from Zamboanga City to another Location, Maria Clara I. Lobregat, in her capacity as Mayor of the City of Zamboanga.


Before the Court is a letter dated June 24, 2008 of Judge Paz Esperanza M. Cortes relative to the Court's Resolution dated June 3, 2008 which directed her to decide within ninety days Criminal Cases Nos. 122366-H and 122367-H insofar as accused Halik AAbdani, Santimar Sali and Javier Sampang are concerned inquiring whether she will decide the cases informing the Court that she is no longer the acting presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 266, Pasig City (Taguig Station) since March 24, 2008 in view of the appointment of Judge Toribio E. Ilao, Jr. as the presiding judge of the said court on March 18, 2008.

The antecedents show that : the subject cases together with other cases were transferred from the RTC of Zamboanga City to the RTC of Pasig City; said cases were raffled to Branch 162 with Judge Marietta Homena-Valencia as acting presiding judge; in a letter dated July 25, 2006, Judge Valencia requested to unload said cases which was granted in the Resolution dated September 26, 2006; by then, Judge Cesar Pabel D. Sulit was already appointed as the presiding judge of Branch 162 who continued hearing the subject cases and issued an Order dated September 27, 2006 for the parties to submit their respective Memoranda within 60 days from receipt of said Order; said cases were re-raffled to Branch 69 with Judge Lorifel Pahimna as the presiding judge who likewise requested the said cases be raffled considering that she is also handling other ASG cases and the subject cases were already deemed submitted for decision and therefore need not be transferred; upon the recommendation of the OCA, the request of Judge Pahimna was granted and the said cases were ordered re-raffled in the Resolution dated June 5, 2007; subject cases were re-raffled to Branch 266 with Judge Cortes as the acting presiding judge; the records and TSNs were transmitted to Judge Cortes on July 27, 2007; in compliance with the Resolution dated November 20, 2007 requiring her to submit the status of the subject cases, Judge Cortes submitted a Letter dated December 7, 2007 therein stated that the subject cases were already submitted for decision; upon the recommendation of the OCA, Judge Cortes was directed to decide the subject cases in the Resolution dated June 3, 2008.

Notably, the subject cases were deemed submitted for decision for decision on November 27, 2006 when the parties failed to submit their respective memoranda as directed by Judge Sulit. By then, the subject cases were already assigned to Judge Cortes and all the records and TSNs were transmitted to her. As Judge Cortes failed to render decision within the reglementary period of ninety days, the Court issued to her to do so in the Resolution dated June 3, 2009.

In the Memorandum dated August 15, 2008, the OCA recommends that:

1. the June 3, 2008 Resolution directing Judge Cortes to decide thee cases within ninety days be set aside; and
   
2. Judge Ilao be directed to enforce the guidelines set forth in A.M. No. 04-5-19-SC^[1] in determining who between him and Judge Cortes should decide the subject cases.

The Court disagrees.

Considering the antecedents, nature and gravity of the crime, length of time of the pendency of the cases, security risks and more than expediency, the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy disposition of cases, the requirement under A.M. No. 04-5-2-19-SC that the plaintiff should be asked to manifest whether or not he/she desires the transferred judge should decide the case, is not applicable.Moreover, the court had already issued its directive for Judge Cortes to decide the subject cases in the Resolution of June 3, 2008.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVES to:

1. DIRECT Judge Paz Esperanza M. Cortes to decide with dispatch Criminal Cases Nos. 122365-H, 122366-H and 122367-H;
   
2. SHOE CAUSE why no disciplinary action should be meted on her for failure to decide the said cases within ninety days from July 27, 2007, within 10 days from receipt of herein Resolution.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Should any case be left undecided by the transferred/assigned judge, the judge conducting the inventory shall cause the issuance to the parties of a notice of transfer/detail/assignment of the judge to which the case had been assigned, with a directive for the plaintiff/s to manifest, within five (5) days from receipt of such notice, whether or not he/she desires that the transferred judge should decide the case. The desire of the plaintiff, who may opt to have the case decided by the new judge shall be respected.
However, should the defendant oppose the manifestation of the plaintiff, the new judge shall resolve the matter accordance with these Guidelines. Should the plaintiff fail to submit such manifestation within the said 5-day period, the presumption is that he/she desires that the case be decided by the transferred judge.

The manifestation of the plaintiff that the case should be decided by the transferred judge shall be forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator which, upon the receipt thereof, shall issue the proper directive. A directive requiring the transferred judge to decide the case immediately shall state any of these conditions:

(a)	If the new station of the transferred judge is within the province of the judicial region of his/her former station, the case shall be decided in such station by the transferred judge who shall adjust his/her calendar to enable him/her to dispose the undecided cases at his/her own expense without sacrificing efficiency in the performance of his/her duties in his/her new station.
(b)	If the new station of the transferred judge is outside of the province in the judicial region of his/her former station, the records of the undecided case shall be delivered either by personal service or by registered mail, to the transferred judge and at his/her own expense.

In either case, the Office of the Court Administrator shall furnish the parties to the case with a copy of such directive and the transferred judge shall return to his former branch the records of the case with the decision that the new judge shall promulgate in his stead.