GR 48817; (October, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48817 October 29, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellant, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, Br. X, GUMACA, QUEZON, and GREGORIO MALCO, respondent-appellees.
FACTS
Private respondent Gregorio Malco was charged with attempted rape before the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch X, then presided by Judge Mapalad A. Nañadiego. After the defense rested on October 15, 1977, the case was submitted for decision. Judge Nañadiego retired on April 17, 1978, without deciding the case. Judge Juan B. Montecillo, the Presiding Judge of Branch III, was then designated pro tempore to take over Branch X and decided the case on May 22, 1978. On June 9, 1978, Judge Conrado R. Antona was appointed as the permanent Presiding Judge of Branch X; he took his oath and assumed office on June 10, 1978, thereby terminating Judge Montecillo’s temporary designation. On June 20, 1978, a Special Deputy Clerk of Court promulgated Judge Montecillo’s decision acquitting Malco. The prosecution moved to set aside the judgment, arguing it was null and void because Judge Montecillo was no longer the judge-designate of Branch X when his decision was promulgated. Judge Antona denied the motion, sustaining the acquittal.
ISSUE
Whether the judgment of acquittal penned by a trial judge detailed to a vacant branch but promulgated after a permanent judge has been appointed to that vacancy is valid.
RULING
Yes, the judgment of acquittal is valid. The Supreme Court ruled that a trial judge whose temporary detail to a vacant branch has expired may still decide cases submitted to him for decision during his detail, provided he remains an incumbent judge of the same court, albeit assigned to a different branch, at the time of the decision’s promulgation. Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the individual judges or branches. Since Judge Montecillo was the permanent judge of Branch III of the same Court of First Instance of Quezon when he penned and promulgated the decision, he continued to possess the authority to dispose of the case. The Court found no evidence of bad faith and emphasized that the decision was in accord with law and the facts. To rule otherwise would disrupt orderly judicial process and could result in double jeopardy. The petition was denied, and the acquittal was affirmed.