GR L 25567; (February, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25567; February 20, 1967
CIRILO MANAOIS, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE S. DE LA CRUZ, as Judge Presiding over Branch No. IV of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, and HON. AUGUSTO O. SAROCA as Fiscal of Dagupan City, representing the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Cirilo Manaois was charged with murder in Criminal Case No. L-1817 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch IV, presided by respondent Judge Jose S. de la Cruz. The information was filed on June 30, 1965. Petitioner was arraigned on July 13, 1965, and the trial was set, by choice of the parties, for September 7, 8, and 9, 1965. On September 7, 1965, upon the verbal motion of petitioner’s counsel alleging the accused was sick, the court postponed the hearing to October 28 and 29, 1965. On October 27, 1965, one day before the scheduled hearing, petitioner wrote a letter to respondent Judge requesting the appointment of assessors to assist in the trial pursuant to Section 154 of Act No. 190 . On November 24, 1965, respondent Judge denied the request, finding that the petitioner failed to make the request at the earliest convenient time, as it was filed more than three months after his arraignment and only one day before the rescheduled hearing, thereby potentially hindering or delaying the trial. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the instant petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in denying petitioner’s request for the appointment of assessors.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The right to the service of assessors is subject to the condition that the request for their appointment be made at the earliest convenient time so as not to hinder or delay the trial or inconvenience the court’s work. Under the circumstances—where petitioner was arraigned on July 13, 1965, the trial was set for September 1965 and postponed to October 1965 upon his motion, and the request for assessors was filed only on October 27, 1965, one day before the hearing—respondent Judge had reason to believe the request was not seasonably made and was merely for purposes of delay. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. The petition was dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.