G.R. No. L-30050 June 27, 1975
CESAR B. VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. JUDGE NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, CFI OF ZAMBALES, BRANCH I, OLONGAPO CITY, and JESUS RAMOS, respondents.

FACTS

This petition for certiorari arose from Criminal Case No. 4480 for homicide. After a six-year trial, the case was submitted for decision to Judge Lucas Lacson in September 1966. Over two years later, notices were sent for the promulgation of judgment on October 30, 1968, but the accused, Jesus Ramos, repeatedly failed to appear. Judge Lacson retired on December 1, 1968, without his decision having been promulgated. Respondent Judge Numeriano G. Estenzo, assigned to the sala, was informed no decision had been promulgated. He then prepared and, on January 2, 1969, promulgated his own decision, sentencing Ramos to three months imprisonment. The accused immediately began serving his sentence.
Petitioner Cesar B. Villanueva, the victim’s brother and private prosecutor, assailed this act, contending Judge Estenzo acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in rendering a decision in a case he never heard, thereby allegedly altering Judge Lacson’s unseen decision. Respondents countered that a decision by a retired judge not promulgated during his incumbency is a nullity, and it was Judge Estenzo’s duty to decide based on the records. They also argued the petition was moot as Ramos had already served his sentence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Numeriano G. Estenzo acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in deciding and promulgating a judgment in a criminal case originally heard by another judge who had retired without promulgating his decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The ruling is grounded on established jurisprudence and procedural law. A judgment rendered by a judge who has retired or left office before its promulgation is void. Promulgation is an essential part of the judicial function, and a decision becomes binding only upon its valid promulgation. Since Judge Lacson retired without promulgating his decision, it never attained validity. Consequently, it was the ministerial duty of his successor, Judge Estenzo, to decide the case based on the evidence of record. The authority of a judge to decide a case he did not try is well-settled; there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that the judge who heard the evidence must also pen the decision. A successor judge can render a valid judgment after a thorough study of the case records, transcripts, and exhibits. The Court found that Judge Estenzo diligently reviewed the entire record before rendering his decision. Furthermore, the petition was rendered academic as the accused had fully served the imposed penalty, making the judgment final and executory. The Court emphasized that the interest of a private prosecutor is limited to the civil liability, not the criminal penalty imposed.