[A.M. No. 02-1-33-RTC.April 23, 2002]

RE:TRANSFER OF VENUE OF TRIAL OF CRIM. CASE # 777-3

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 23 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.")

Before the Court are: (1) an Omnibus Motion, dated 6 February 2002, filed by counsel for petitioner; (2) a Motion to set for conference, dated 11 February 2002, filed by counsel for Nur Misuari; (3) an Omnibus Motion, dated 14 February 2002, filed by counsel for movants- intervenors; and (4) the Comment Thereon, dated April 16, 2000, filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

After careful deliberation and purposeful discussion, the Court RESOLVES to deny with finality all the foregoing three motions, which partake the nature of motions for Reconsideration of our earlier Orders.

Movants' repeated argument that the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Rosa, Laguna has no jurisdiction over their cases is clearly wrong.Unarguably, the regional trial courts have jurisdiction over the crimes imputed against the accused.Section 5(4) of Article VIII of the constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to "order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice."Taking into account the security requirements in the case and without sacrificing the basic rights of the accused, this Court already resolved, in its Resolution dated 22 January 2002, to direct the transfer of the venue of the trial.This action was taken after careful study of all relevant circumstances as well as the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

We cannot also grant the plea for a conference on this matter considering that the prosecution is not willing to discuss it any further.Hence, any such conference would just be a futile exercise that would merely unduly delay the proceedings.

Movants have not presented adequate proof that the alleged negative publicity has caused extreme prejudice to them to such an extent as to deprive them of due process.Speculation or suspicion is not equivalent to proof.

At bottom, movants have not presented cogent, substantial or compelling arguments to convince us to grant their motions, which - to reiterate - are hereby DENIED with finality.(Melo, Kapunan and Santiago, JJ., abroad on official business.)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE