G.R. No. 187117 and 187127; October 12, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE D. AZARRAGA and JOHN REY PREVENDIDO, Respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner filed two Informations before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City against private respondent John Rey Prevendido for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165). The cases were initially raffled to Branch 36, a designated special court for drug cases. The presiding judge, Judge Victor E. Gelvezon, inhibited himself due to close family ties with a PDEA operative involved in the case. The cases were then reassigned to another special court, Branch 25, whose judge, Judge Evelyn E. Salao, also inhibited herself for the same reason. Citing Chapter V, Section 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC (Guidelines on Executive Judges), Executive Judge Antonio M. Natino ordered the records forwarded to Branch 37, presided by public respondent Judge Jose D. Azarraga, who was the pairing judge of the originally assigned Branch 36. The prosecutor filed a Motion to Transfer Case, questioning Judge Azarraga’s jurisdiction under Section 90 of R.A. 9165, arguing that Branch 37 was not a specially designated drug court. Judge Azarraga denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, holding that under the circumstances of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, Branch 37 became a special court. The petitioner filed a Petition for Prohibition before the Supreme Court. While the petition was pending, Judge Azarraga inhibited himself, and the cases were transferred to Branch 35, a regular court.

ISSUE

1. Whether a judge assigned to a regular court (initially Branch 37, later Branch 35) has jurisdiction over drug cases despite not being originally designated as a special court under R.A. No. 9165.
2. Whether A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, particularly Chapter V, Section 9, is in conformity with Section 90 of R.A. No. 9165, which mandates the designation of special courts to exclusively try drug cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that the issuance of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC did not violate R.A. No. 9165. The Court explained that Congress, under Section 90 of R.A. No. 9165, empowered the Supreme Court with full discretion to designate special courts for drug cases. Chapter V, Section 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC is a valid exercise of this discretionary power and of the Court’s constitutional rule-making authority aimed at ensuring a simplified, inexpensive, and speedy disposition of cases. The guideline provides a clear procedure: when judges in designated special courts for drug cases are disqualified or inhibit themselves, and there are no other available special courts of the same nature, the case shall be forwarded to the pairing judge of the original special court, and if that judge is also disqualified, the case shall be raffled to other regular courts. This mechanism itself constitutes an express designation of a special court under the circumstances, ensuring that cases are not delayed. Therefore, the judge of Branch 37 (and subsequently Branch 35) properly acquired jurisdiction over the drug cases pursuant to the Supreme Court’s guidelines. The petition failed to show that the guidelines contravened the law.