G.R. No. L-29836 February 29, 1972
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE SIXTO A. DOMONDON, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN, SAN CARLOS CITY (PANGASINAN) BRANCH, FILOMENA GABRIEL, JOSE C. ARENAS, AND ESTELA MACAM-NICANOR, respondents.

FACTS

This is an original action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus filed by the People, represented by a State Prosecutor. Private respondents are accused in separate but jointly tried criminal cases for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) in connection with an alleged leakage of test questions for a Teachers’ Selective Examination. A fourth accused, Jessie S. Siapno, was discharged to become a state witness. During the joint trial, when the prosecution presented Siapno to identify her sworn extrajudicial confession, the defense objected on the ground that her testimony might incriminate her in a potential administrative case. Respondent Judge sustained the objection. The prosecution also sought to have Siapno describe the test booklet mentioned in her confession, but the defense objected under the best evidence rule, which objection was likewise sustained.
Subsequently, respondent Judge Domondon was appointed to another branch. However, he retained the records of these criminal cases instead of turning them over to the newly appointed judge of the San Carlos City Branch to which the cases properly belonged. The petitioner thus also seeks to prohibit Judge Domondon from continuing the hearings and to order the transfer of the cases.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the objection based on the right against self-incrimination to prevent witness Siapno from identifying her extrajudicial confession; (2) Whether the court erred in applying the best evidence rule to bar Siapno’s description of the test booklet; and (3) Whether respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction in retaining the cases after his transfer to another branch.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. On the first issue, the right against self-incrimination is personal and may be waived by the witness entitled to claim it. Witness Jessie S. Siapno, having been lawfully discharged to testify for the prosecution, effectively waived this privilege. The defendants, who are not the ones testifying, cannot invoke the privilege on her behalf. Therefore, the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the objection and preventing her from identifying her confession.
On the second issue, the best evidence rule was misapplied. The rule applies when the purpose is to prove the contents of a document. Here, another witness had already testified that the physical test booklet, except for one page, had been burned. In such a circumstance, the contents may be proven by the recollection of witnesses, as allowed under the Rules of Court. Siapno’s testimony describing the booklet is admissible.
On the third issue, the Court found that respondent Judge Domondon acted without authority in retaining the cases after his reassignment. The cases properly pertained to the San Carlos City Branch. A judge of one branch cannot take a case belonging to another branch without justifiable reason and prior permission from the Supreme Court, as such action breeds confusion and is disruptive to the orderly administration of justice. The normal procedure required the cases to be turned over to the judge of the branch to which they were raffled.
The Court directed respondent Judge to turn over the records to the presiding judge of the San Carlos City Branch, who was ordered to proceed with the trial accordingly.