G.R. No. 89591 -96; January 24, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, Presiding Judge of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court of Antique, and AVELINO T. JAVELLANA, respondents.

FACTS

The Supreme Court, in a prior resolution, upheld the trial court’s order placing private respondent Avelino T. Javellana, an accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355, under the custody of the Clerk of Court, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, at his residence instead of the provincial jail due to shown security risks. The order explicitly stipulated that Javellana was to be held as a detention prisoner without liberty to roam. However, this condition was violated as Javellana moved freely and continued his law practice. A subsequent motion for clarification was filed by a State Prosecutor, questioning the scope of a prior Court prohibition on Javellana’s practice, the status of his custodian, and whether his non-detention constituted escape.
While the Court noted this motion, proceedings continued. Following the denial of a motion for reconsideration, the trial court resumed hearings. A separate motion was then filed seeking the revocation of the custody order and Javellana’s imprisonment in the provincial jail. Javellana himself filed an urgent motion seeking clarification on the unresolved motion for clarification, amidst his arrest on other charges which placed him under the custody of the law.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the circumstances justifying the special custody order for Avelino T. Javellana persist, and what the legal consequences are of his status as a detention prisoner regarding his practice of law and place of confinement.

RULING

The Court ruled that the special custody order must be revoked and Javellana detained in the provincial jail. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental nature of arrest and detention. Upon arrest, an accused is placed under the custody of the law and his liberty is actually restrained; detention in jail is mandatory unless the court authorizes release via bail or recognizance. The original order was an exceptional measure due to proven threats to Javellana’s life. The Court found that these justifying circumstances no longer existed. Furthermore, Atty. del Rosario, the designated custodian, had ceased to be Clerk of Court upon his appointment as a judge, and the custodial duty devolved to his successor.
Regarding the practice of law, the Court held it is a necessary legal consequence of being a detention prisoner that one cannot practice a profession, engage in business, or hold office. This prohibition is inherent to the state of being under actual restraint. The trial court’s original order was clear that Javellana was to be held as a detention prisoner, which logically encompassed this prohibition. The prior resolution barring his appearance in a specific case (Criminal Case No. 4262) was illustrative, not exhaustive; the ban applies to all cases except where he appears pro se to defend himself. Consequently, the Court set aside the 1989 custody order and directed that all accused in the relevant criminal cases, including Javellana, be detained in the Antique Provincial Jail without leave except by prior written court permission, and ordered the trial court to expedite the long-pending cases.