G.R. No. L-22778 November 29, 1965
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. TEOFILO B. BUSLON, as Vacation Judge of the Court of First Instance of Agusan; and RUSTICO ALBURO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Rustico Alburo was charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2260. The prosecution’s evidence was heard by District Judge Montano Ortiz. After the prosecution rested, the defense moved to dismiss but later waived this motion and requested trial dates in April 1964 to present defense evidence. Respondent Judge Teofilo Buslon, a vacation judge from Surigao del Norte, was assigned to hold court in Agusan in April. A notice of hearing for April 7 and 8, 1964, was issued but was not served on the Provincial Fiscal’s office. It was served on the private prosecutor’s office on April 6, but the private prosecutor was noted to be in Manila. No trial was held on April 7 due to the judge’s delay. On April 8, neither the Provincial Fiscal nor the private prosecutor was present. Special Counsel Amado Bajarias sought a continuance due to their absence and lack of notice, and because he could not handle the case personally as the Fiscal did. Respondent Judge insisted on proceeding, as he was staying only until April 15. Trial proceeded in the afternoon, with defense witnesses presented and cross-examined by Bajarias. The case was submitted, and on April 15, Judge Buslon promulgated a decision acquitting the accused.

ISSUE

Whether the proceedings conducted by respondent Judge Buslon, including the acquittal, should be annulled due to alleged lack of authority to hear a partly tried case and abuse of discretion in proceeding with the trial despite lack of notice to the prosecution.

RULING

The petition for certiorari is denied. Respondent Judge, as a vacation judge designated by the Department of Justice under section 66 of the Judiciary Act, had the authority to try all kinds of cases and enter judgments, which included the power to hear and decide the Alburo case even if it had been partly tried by the regular judge. The acquittal after trial bars relitigation under double jeopardy principles. While irregularities occurred, such as the lack of notice to the prosecution, these did not constitute illegality vitiating the trial or amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The absence of notice was palliated by the cross-examination conducted by special counsel Bajarias, who did not make any reservation or offer of rebuttal evidence. Any error in credence accorded to defense witnesses is not reviewable due to the acquittal. The denial is without prejudice to the administrative case against respondent Judge.