Scribd
Upload
187 views

AZARRAGA

This document discusses a case involving the jurisdiction of a regional trial court judge to hear a drug case. The case was originally assigned to one judge, who inhibited himself due to a family connection to a witness. It was then assigned to a second judge, who also inhibited herself for the same reason. According to court rules, the case was then assigned to the pairing judge of the first court. However, the prosecutor questioned this judge's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that designation of a special court is not absolute, and under certain exemptions provided by law, a regular court can try drug cases.

Uploaded by

lucky javellana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
187 views

AZARRAGA

This document discusses a case involving the jurisdiction of a regional trial court judge to hear a drug case. The case was originally assigned to one judge, who inhibited himself due to a family connection to a witness. It was then assigned to a second judge, who also inhibited herself for the same reason. According to court rules, the case was then assigned to the pairing judge of the first court. However, the prosecutor questioned this judge's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that designation of a special court is not absolute, and under certain exemptions provided by law, a regular court can try drug cases.

Uploaded by

lucky javellana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The Case. - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE D.

AZARRAGA and JOHN REY PREVENDIDO, Respondents.G. R. Nos. 187117 and


187127

Facts. - Petitioner filed two (2) Informationsbefore the Regional Trial


Court (RTC) of Iloilo City against private respondentfor Violation of Article II,
Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.The cases were raffled to Branch 36, a designated
special court pursuant to R.A. 9165, presided by Judge Victor E. Gelvezon. Soon
after, however, Judge Gelvezon disclosed that CoreenGemarino, the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) operative who conducted the entrapment
operation against private respondent, had close family ties with him. Thus, in
order to preserve the integrity of the court, Judge Gelvezon issued an
Orderinhibiting himself from trying the case. The cases were then reassigned to
the other special court, Branch 25, presided by Judge Evelyn E. Salao.
Judge Salao also issued an Orderwhereby she inhibited herself for the
reason that CoreenGemarino was a cousin; thus, the cases were endorsed to
the Office of the Executive Judge for reassignment.
Citing Chap. V, Sec. 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, Executive Judge Antonio M.
Natino ordered the Clerk of Court to forward the entire records of the cases to
Branch 37 presided over by public respondent, the pairing judge of Branch 36,
which was the special court that originally handled the cases.
However, as soon as public respondent proceeded with the cases,
Prosecutor Kenneth John Amamanglon filed a Motion to Transfer Case to a
Branch of Competent Jurisdiction.He questioned the jurisdiction of public
respondent to hear the cases, citing Sec. 90 of R.A. 9165. Prosecutor
Amamanglon also claimed that, as the prosecutor assigned to Branch 37, he
was not among the prosecutors who had been designated to handle cases
exclusively involving violations of R.A. 9165.
On the same day, respondent judge denied the motion on three grounds:
1. This motion ought not to have been filed in this court for lack
of legal basis;
2. This court is not without jurisdiction to hear the instant case;
3. The matter about the appearance of Trial Prosecutor Kenneth
John Amamanglon should have been addressed to the Department
concerned.
Respondent judge thus set the hearing on the Motion for Admission to
Bail. He directed the city prosecutor to assign an assistant city prosecutor to
handle the case. Prosecutor Amamanglon, however, moved for a
reconsideration of respondent judges Order, contending that the trial court
needed a special designation from this Court in order to have jurisdiction over
the cases. Thus, Prosecutor Amamanglon concluded, absent the special
designation, respondent court should remand the cases to the Office of the
Executive Judge for re-raffling to another court specially designated pursuant
to R.A. 9165.

Issue. – Is the contention of Prosecutor Amamanglon correct?

Held. – NO, Under R.A. 9165, Congress empowered this Court with the
full discretion to designate special courts to hear, try and decide drug cases. It
was precisely in the exercise of this discretionary power that the powers of the
executive judge were included in Chap. V, Sec. 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC vis--vis
Sec. 5(5) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, in cases of inhibition or
disqualification, the executive judge is mandated to assign the drug case to a
regular court in the following order: first, to the pairing judge of the special
court where the case was originally assigned; and, second, if the pairing judge
is likewise disqualified or has inhibited himself, then to another regular court
through a raffle. Under these exceptional circumstances, this Court designated
the regular court, ipso facto, as a special court but only for that case. Being a
designated special court, it is likewise bound to follow the relevant rules in
trying and deciding the drug case pursuant to R.A. 9165.

Doctrine learned. – Designation of special courts is not an ironclad rule.


Under the exemptions provided by law they can try, hear and decide cases.

You might also like