[G.R. No.146551-52. October 22, 2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES et al. vs. HON. ROSETE et al.
hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 22 2001.
G.R. 146551-52(People of the Philippines
and Rufina Chua vs. Hon. Maxwel S. Rosete, Acting Judge of Metropolitan Trial
Court, Br. 58, San Juan and Wilfred N. Chiok)
On January 23, 2001, the
People of the Philippines and Rufina Chua, petitioners, through a private
prosecutor, filed with this Court a "Petition for Change of Venue" of Criminal
Case Nos. 44739 and 51988, "People of the Philippines vs. Wilfred Chiok," both
for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. On November 27, 2000, these cases were jointly
decided by Judge Maxwell S. Rosete of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 58, San Juan, Metro Manila, acquitting
accused Wilfred Chiok and absolving him of any civil liability.
Aggrieved by the decision,
petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration with the MTC. Petitioner Chua
likewise filed complaints with the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Rosete.
Sensing that Judge Rosete
can no longer maintain impartiality, petitioners filed the present 'Petition"
praying for a change of venue in order that their pending motion for
reconsideration of the November 27, 2000 decision will be resolved by another
In his comment, Wilfred
Chiok vehemently opposed the "perceived inhibition" of Judge Rosete, claiming, inter alia, that the latter's decision
was rendered after trial on the merits, where both prosecution and defense were
given the opportunity to be heard; that double jeopardy has already set in; and
that the grounds relied upon by the petitioners are based on speculations and
conjectures and devoid of any legal or factual basis.
In their reply,
petitioners insist that they are only asking this Court to order a change of
venue so that the pending incident will be heard in an impartial forum.
Requests for change of
venue in criminal cases are treated by this Court as administrative matters1 A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC, "Referral of Administrative Matters and
Cases to the Divisions of the Court or to the Chief Justice and Chairmen of
Divisions for Appropriate Actions." and are being referred to the OCA
for evaluation, report and recommendation. However, the instant request,
instead of being considered as an administrative matter, was inadvertently
docketed as a "Petition" and the parties were required to file their respective
memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice.
ACCORDINGLY, let this incident be converted into an administrative
matter and be referred to the Court Administrator for evaluation and
recommendation. He is required to submit his report within ten (10) days from
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court