People of The Philippines Vs Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172, G.R. No. L-32282-83, November 26, 1970
Uploaded by
Gi NoPeople of The Philippines Vs Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172, G.R. No. L-32282-83, November 26, 1970
Uploaded by
Gi NoPeople of the Philippines Vs Hon. Mario J. Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172, G.R. No.
L-32282-83,
November 26, 1970
Facts:
Petition for writs of certiorari and mandamus, with preliminary injunction, filed by the Solicitor
General and State Prosecutors, to annul and set aside the order of Judge Mario J. Gutierrez of
the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur (respondent herein), denying the prosecution's urgent
motion to transfer Criminal Case Nos. 47-V and 48-V of said Court of First Instance, entitled
"People vs. Pilotin, et al.," to the Circuit Criminal Court of the Second Judicial District; to direct
the respondent Judge to effectuate such transfer; and to restrain the trial of the cases aforesaid
in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, sitting in Vigan, capital of the province.
The Secretary issued Administrative Order No. 226, authorizing Judge Mario Gutierrez to
transfer Criminal Cases Nos. 47-V and 48-V to the Circuit Criminal Court, "in the interest of
justice and pursuant to Republic Act No. 5179, as implemented by Administrative Order Nos.
258 and 274" of the Department of Justice. The Administrative Orders were issued at the
instance of the witnesses seeking transfer of the hearing from Vigan to either San Fernando, La
Union, or Baguio City, for reasons of security and personal safety.
Issue:
Whether or not Administrative Order No. 226 merely authorized the court below, but did not
require or command it, to transfer the cases in question to the Circuit Criminal Court.
Whether or not the cases should be transferred to the Circuit Criminal Court.
Ruling:
With regards to the First Issue:
Yes. The creation by Republic Act No. 5179 of the Circuit Criminal Courts nowhere indicates an
intent to permit the transfer of preselected individual cases to the circuit courts. The very terms
of Administrative Order No. 226 relied upon by the petitioners, in merely authorizing, and not
directing, Judges Arciaga and Gutierrez to transfer Criminal Cases to the Circuit Criminal Court
of the Second Judicial District. Respondent Judge Gutierrez, therefore in construing
Administrative Order No. 226 as permissive and not mandatory, acted within the limits of his
discretion and violated neither the law nor the Executive Orders heretofore mentioned.
With regards to the Second Issue:
Yes. It is unfortunate that in refusing to consider Department Administrative Order No. 226 as
mandatory, respondent Judge Gutierrez failed to act upon the contention of the prosecuting
officers that the cases should be transferred because a miscarriage of justice was impending, in
view of the refusal of the prosecution witnesses to testify in the court sitting in Vigan, Ilocos
Sur, where they felt their lives would be endangered. There is an imperious necessity of
transferring the place of trial to a site outside of Ilocos Sur, if the cases are to be judicially
inquired into conformably to the interest of truth and justice and the State is to be given a fair
chance to present its side of the case.
Since the rigorous application of the general principle of Rule 110, Section 14 (a), would result
here in preventing a fair and impartial inquiry into the actual facts of the case, it must be
admitted that the exigencies of justice demand that the general rule relied upon by accused
respondents should yield to occasional exceptions wherever there are weighty reasons
therefor. Otherwise, the rigor of the law would become the highest injustice — "summum jus,
summa in juria."
