ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 89591-96. September 8, 1999]
PEOPLE vs. HON. SANZ MACEDA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated SEPT 8 1999.
G.R. No. 89591-96 (People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Sanz Maceda, et al.)
We now resolve the motion of the Solicitor General and a Senior State Prosecutor seeking reconsideration of this Court's decision promulgated on August 13, 1990, insofar as it found that respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated August 3, 7, and 8, 1989, in criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355 of the Regional Trial Court of Antique.1 [Order dated August 3, 1989, placing custody of respondent-accused Javellana into the Antique Provincial Probation Officer; Order dated August 7, 1989, transferring custody of respondent-accused Javellana to his own lawyers; Orders dated August 8, 1989, entrusting the custody of respondent-accused Javellana to the Clerk of Court and ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, Deogracias del Rosario; Rollo , p. 2.]
On October 29, 1986, Senior State Prosecutor Tirso D.C. Velasco filed with the Regional Trial Court, Antique, six (6) separate informations charging respondent Avelino T. Jevellana, together with John Paloy, Vicente Vegafria, Eduardo Iran alias "Boy Muslim," alias "Muklo," Rudolfo Pacificador alias "Ding," Arturo F. Pacificador and several John Does, with murder, frustrated murder and four (4) counts of attempted murder. The cases were consolidated and raffled to Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Antique, presided over by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda.
In the course of the proceedings. Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda issued the questioned orders, as follows: (1) Order dated August 3, 1989, placing custody over accused Javellana into the Antique Provincial Probation Officer; (2) Order dated August 7, 1989, transferring custody over accused Javellana to his own lawyers; and (3) Order dated August 8, 1989, entrusting custody over accused Javellana to the Clerk ofCourt and ex-oficio Provincial Sheriff, Deogracias del Rosario.
On August 28, 1989, Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe files a petition with the Supreme Court2 [Petition, Rollo, pp. 1-16.] to annul the aforecited orders alleging grave abuse of discretion of respondent judge from respondent judge from hearing the case before his sala as well as the early resolution of the people's motion to discharge one of the accused, Oscar Tiauson, to be utilized as State witness, with prayer for temporary restraining order.
Before this Court could resolve this petition, the Solicitor General and Senior State Prosecutor Trampe3 [Rollo, p. 57.] filed a supplemental petition. Still alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Maceda, petitioners questioned the: (1) denial of the motion to discharge accused Oscar Tiauson to become a state witness; (2) respondent judge's continued insistence to proceed with hearing the motion foe bail of respondent Javellana despite the pending motion for him to inhibit himself from the case; and (3) contempt order for the arrest and commitment of Assistant Prosecutor John Torralba in the Antique Provincial jail.
On August 13, 1990, this Court promulgated a decision finding no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the orders of August 3, 7, and 8, 1989.4 [Decision, August 13, 1990, Rollo, p. 532.]
However, respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in continuously hearing respondent Javellana's petition for bail and ordering the arrest and commitment of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor John Torralba for contempt due to his request for postponement.5 [Ibid, Rollo, p. 532.] Hence we restrained judge Maceda from trying the criminal cases involved.
On September 18, 1990, the Solicitor General and Senior State Prosecutor Trampe moved for reconsideration of the decision insofar as the Court found that the trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated August 3, 7, and 8, 1989. They cited provisions of the Revised Administrative Code:
A jail for the safe-keeping of prisoners shall be maintained at the capitol of each province; and in the absence of special provision. All expenses incident to the maintenance thereof and of maintaining prisoners therein shall be borne by the province." 6 [Section 1729, Revised Administrative Code.]
x x x
"The governor of the province shall be charged with the keeping of the provincial jail and it shall be his duty to administer the same in accordance with law and the regulations prescribed for the government of the provincial prison. The immediate custody and supervision of the jail may be committed to the care of a jailer to be appointed by the provincial governor." 7 [Section 1731, Revised Administrative Code.] (Emphasis Supplied)
Furthermore, they cited Section 1735 of the same code, which provides that:
"In any province in which, in the opinion of the President of the Philippines, the provincial jail is not safely guarded, he shall have authority by executive order to direct that the senior Constabulary officer of such province shall take custody of the jail under the supervision of the Provincial governor and guard the prisoners therein, using for this purpose members of the Philippine Constabulary as jail guards." 8 [Section 1735, Revised Administrative Code.] (Emphasis supplied)
However, in this case, the temporary restraining orders issued on August 31, and September 22, 1989 were not lifted.
On March 8, 1995, accused Arturo F. Pacificador surrendered to PNP Director General Recaredo A. Sarmiento, II. Immediately accused Pacificador filed a motion to fix bail, which was opposed by the Office of the Solicitor General. In an order dated April 3, 1995, Judge Antonio M. Natino, temporarily replacing respondent judge as presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Brach 12, Antique, refrained from acting on the motion because he considered the restraining order issued by this Court to be still in force.
In a resolution dated July 19, 1999, this Court lifted the temporary restraining orders of August 31, and September 22, 1989.9 [Rollo, p. 1475.] Another resolution dated July 20, 1999 directed the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Antique, presided over by Judge Antonio M. Natino, to proceed with hearing respondent Javellana's petition for bail and to continue with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355.10 [Rollo, pp. 1476-1477.]
We find no reason to disturb the August 13, 1990 decision.
The crucial issue for resolution is whether respondent Judge Maceda committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned orders of August 3, 7 and 8, 1989 above-mentioned. Petitioners insist that "only the provincial governor can, by law, validly take custody of accused-respondent Javellana in light of the mandatory language of the Revised Administrative Code."11 [Motion for Reconsideration, ibid.]
We disagree with petitioners.
Sections 1729 and 1731 of the Revised Administrative Code did not mention anything regarding custody over the person of the accused. Neither could Section 1735 of the Revised Administrative Code be construed as conferring authority to the President of the Philippines custody over prisoners. What the Revised Administrative Code provided was administrative supervision over provincial jails. This was essentially executive in nature, which the judiciary cannot interfere with.
Respondent Javellana has been arrested and presented to the trial court because of the criminal indictments against him. By such arrest, he is deemed to be under the custody of the law. And the court, which is tasked with the administration of justice, has the authority and responsibility to safeguard the person of the accused pending criminal proceedings, to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In relation to this, the court has the discretion to adopt measures that would guarantee the accused's attendance at the trial of the criminal case against him.
Contrary to the contention of petitioners, there were compelling reasons why respondent Javellana should not be confined in the Provincial Jail of Antique. Respondent judge in his order of August 7, 1989 satisfactorily explained these, which this Court found proper to reproduce in full in its August 13, 1990 decision. There was an actual threat to the life of respondent Javellana if he would be confined at the Antique provincial jail.
Under the circumstances respondent judge was concerned with the safety and well being of respondent Javellana during detention. Hence, respondent Judge Maceda had to entrust the custody of respondent Javellana to the provincial Probation Officer as the Police escorts assigned to guard him were unceremoniously recalled by the police Station Commander of San Jose, Antique. He was impelled to make certain that respondent Javellana would be properly detained and able to appear at his prosecution at the proper time.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES petitioner's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. DAVIDE, JR., C.J. and CHAIRMAN, is on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
