Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > April 2007 Resolutions > [A.M. No. 07-3-162-RTC : April 24, 2007] RE: REQUEST OF MR. SATURNINO C. OCAMPO FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE OF SDCA 1539 [CRIMINAL CASE NO. H-1581] FROM RTC, BRANCH 18, HILONGOS, LEYTE TO ANY RTC BRANCH IN MANILA :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 24 APRIL 2007

A.M. No. 07-3-162-RTC (Request of Mr. Saturnino C. Ocampo for Transfer of Venue of SDCA 1539 [Criminal Case No. H-1581] from RTC, Branch 18, Hilongos, Leyte to any RTC Branch in Manila)

Before the Court is the letter-request of petitioner Saturnino C. Ocampo dated March 21, 2007 for the transfer of venue of SDCA 1539 (Criminal Case No. H-1581) entitled "PP v. Jose Maria Sison aka Joma @ Amado Guerrero, @ Amando Liwanag, et al., " for Multiple Murder, from RTC, Branch 18, Hilongos, Leyte to any RTC Branch in Manila.

As ground for his request, petitioner Ocampo cites the harassments and death threats he, the members of his family and his witnesses in the above entitled case have been receiving. Also cited is the hostile environment in Hilongos, Leyte, a place which petitioner Ocampo describes as highly militarized. He is apprehensive that a miscarriage of justice would result if venue of the case is not transferred to Manila for, then, his witnesses cannot safely and freely testify.

Commenting on the request, the Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 18, Hilongos, Leyte states that he is amenable to the transfer of venue to any RTC Branch in Tacloban City or Metro Manila. On the other hand, Prosecutors Rosulo U. Vivero and Edgardo C. Leonido, in their JOINT-COMMENTS dated April 2, 2007, dismiss the apprehensions of petitioner Ocampo as plain and unfounded speculation, since Hilongos, Leyte has enough police and military personnel to secure his safety.

The reasons advanced by petitioner Ocampo are not compelling and weighty enough to grant the desired transfer venue of trial from Hilongos, Leyte to Metro Manila. His allegations of serious threats to his life and that of the defense witnesses are a common feature of high-profile cases. Petitioner is a public figure with a large following of supporters from different mass-based groups. Wherever the venue of the criminal case is going to be, his presence during the trials will always be emotional and tension-filled. Hence, when emotions run high, threats or retaliation, unfortunately, come naturally. Indeed, for justice to prevail, the scales must balance; justice is not to be dispensed for the accused alone. The interests of society and the offended parties which have been wronged must be equally considered (Dimatulac v. Villon, 297 SCRA 679).

For a change of venue to be granted, the situation should be such that neither the prosecution nor the defense witnesses can testify freely or voluntarily in the place where trial is being held. In the present case, we find the possibility of petitioner Ocampo's allegations remote. Paramount consideration should also be given to the fact that this is a multiple murder case involving approximately thirty (30) victims who are mostly farmers. It is with the implication then that their families, along with their witnesses, would be financially constrained to shoulder the travel and accommodation expenses everytime they will attend trial if the venue is transferred to Manila, as compared to the plight of petitioner Ocampo who has the resources that would easily provide him quick access to security escorts and other necessary arrangements that would foster his mobility and ensure his presence whenever needed during the trial.

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant request for change of venue of Criminal Case No. H-1581 is DENIED.