ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. 02-1-33-RTC.January 22, 2002]

RE:TRANSFER OF VENUE OF TRIAL OF CRIM. CASE NO. 777-3

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 22 2002.

A.M. No. 02-1-33-RTC (Re:Transfer of Venue of Trial of Crim. Case No. 777-3 Entitled: People vs. Nur Misuari, et al. for Rebellion.)

Acting on the (A) Letter of Mr. Nur Misuari, dated January 9, 2001, requesting that (1) the venue of the trial of the rebellion case filed against him "be in Jolo, Sulu;" (2) he " be allowed free access to media even on regulated basis in order to let the people know the truth;" (3) he " be allowed to undergo a complete medical check-up at the Makati Medical Center;" and (4) he " be allowed to have a lap-top computer with printer so that [he] can submit more direct letters and petitions to this Honorable Court and other offices;" (B) Consolidated Comment, dated January 18, 2002, filed by the Office of the Solicitor General on behalf of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Philippine National Police (PNP); (C) Compliance, dated January 18, 2002, filed by Atty. Arthur D. Lim on behalf of Mr. Misuari and (D) Memorandum of the Office of he Court Administrator (OCA), on the above subject, and after careful deliberation and purposeful discussion, the Court hereby RESOLVES as follows:

(1) ADOPT the recommendations of OCA to grant the request of the DOJ to transfer the venue of the trial of Criminal Case No. 777-3, entitled "People v. Nur Mirsuari, et al." - for rebellion - from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Jolo, Sulu, Branch 3, to the RTC of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36, presided by Executive Judge Norberto Y. Geraldez. The trial and hearing shall be conducted in the regular courtroom of said Branch until such time that a temporary courtroom is provided within the premises of Port Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The PNP is directed to increase and strengthen the present level of security surrounding the said Camp and its vicinity to ensure the safety and well-being of the constituents of Sta. Rosa, Laguna.

As claimed by Misuari, a criminal action - under Section 15 of rule 110 of the Rules of Court - should normally be instituted and tried in the court that has jurisdiction over the place where the offense was committed. However, this Court has transferred venues of cases when the interest of justice so requires (People v. Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172; Beltran v. Ramos, 96 Phil. 149; and People v. Sola, 103 SCRA 393).

Thus, under Section 5(4) of Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme court is granted the power to "order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice." In exercising this power in the present case, the Court took careful note of the OSG's submission that while "Misuari and seven (7) of his men were apprehended by government authorities, the rest of the estimated 300-400 heavily-armed MNLF faction loyal to Misuari remain at large and are free to continue their terroristic activities," as shown by their attack on "the 104 ^th Brigade Headquarters of the Philippine Army on November 19, 2001."

To conduct trial in a place where witnesses will not safely be at liberty to reveal their knowledge will make a mockery of a judicial proceeding.

(2) REFER the three other requests of Mr. Misuari regarding his access to media, medical check-up and use of a computer to the DOJ, DILG and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, for appropriate action consistent with fairness and existing rules. In accordance with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, these offices are authorized by law to act on these requests. The judiciary - especially this Court - does not act on matters that are best handled by the government agencies specifically tasked by law to do so. Courts are mere passive institutions which, as a rule, are merely called upon to review, and not preempt or take-over, the exercise of the functions of appropriate agencies of the government. Of course, where there is error or abuse or neglect in such exercise, recourse to the proper courts, consistent with the law and rules, is always an option.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE