GR 103275; (June, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 103275 June 15, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE RODOLFO M. BELLAFLOR, Assisting Judge, Branch 28, Regional Trial Court, Mandaue City, and REUBEN ALBAÑO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Reuben Albaño was charged with arson before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City, Branch 28, then presided by Judge Willelmo C. Fortun. After trial, the parties rested their case. On February 4, 1991, Judge Fortun was designated as Assisting Judge for the RTC in the National Capital Judicial Region, to hold office in Manila. On March 13, 1991, respondent Judge Rodolfo M. Bellaflor was assigned as his replacement in Branch 28. On May 3, 1991, Judge Fortun promulgated his decision dated February 6, 1991, convicting Albaño. At the time of promulgation, Judge Bellaflor was already presiding. Albaño moved for reconsideration. On June 26, 1991, Judge Bellaflor granted the motion, set aside Judge Fortun’s decision as null and void for having been promulgated after Fortun had vacated his office, and acquitted Albaño. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Bellaflor committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for reconsideration, nullifying Judge Fortun’s decision, and acquitting Albaño.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the acquittal resolution as null and void, and reinstated Judge Fortun’s conviction. The Court held that Judge Fortun’s decision was validly promulgated. Under Section 9, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, a judge transferred or assigned to another court of equal jurisdiction may prepare and sign a decision in a case totally heard by him anywhere within the Philippines. Judge Fortun was merely temporarily assigned from the RTC of Mandaue to act as Assisting Judge of another RTC (Branch 27, NCJR, Manila), a court of equal jurisdiction. He did not vacate his office as an RTC judge; thus, he retained the judicial authority to decide and promulgate the decision in a case fully heard by him. Consequently, Judge Bellaflor’s resolution, which acquitted Albaño without a consideration of the evidence or merits and solely on the supposed nullity of the prior decision, was an empty judgment of acquittal and constituted grave abuse of discretion. The defense of double jeopardy was also unavailing since the acquittal was upon Albaño’s own motion and was not based on an evaluation of the evidence.