GR L 4552; (February, 1908) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4552
ARTHUR F. YAMBERT, petitioner-appellee, vs. J. MCMICKING, sheriff of the city of Manila, respondent-appellant.
February 5, 1908
FACTS:
Arthur F. Yambert, a public official, was tried by Judge Araullo of the Court of First Instance of Manila for falsification of a public document and was subsequently convicted of reckless negligence (Article 568 of the Penal Code) on January 15, 1908. On January 27, 1908, Yambert applied for a writ of habeas corpus before Judge Crossfield, another judge of the same Court of First Instance. Judge Crossfield issued the writ and, after a hearing, ruled on January 29, 1908, that the facts stated in Judge Araullo’s judgment did not justify the imposed sentence, thereby declaring the judgment void and releasing Yambert from custody. It was not disputed that Judge Araullo had jurisdiction over the offense and the accused. The writ of habeas corpus was issued and decided before the time to appeal from Judge Araullo’s judgment had expired. The sheriff of Manila, J. McMicking, appealed Judge Crossfield’s order.
ISSUE:
Did Judge Crossfield, through a special proceeding for habeas corpus, have the authority to revise errors of fact or law committed by Judge Araullo in a criminal prosecution, particularly when Judge Araullo had jurisdiction over the case and the period for appeal had not yet expired?
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the order issued by Judge Crossfield.
The Court held that, based on repeated decisions and Section 528 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a judge, through a writ of habeas corpus, has no authority to revise errors, whether of fact or of law, committed by another judge in a criminal prosecution, especially when the latter judge had jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that no judge should, by writ of habeas corpus, interfere with a prisoner who is being tried by another judge. The fact that the writ of habeas corpus was issued and decided before the time to appeal from Judge Araullo’s judgment had expired further underscored the impropriety of Judge Crossfield’s action.
Accordingly, the order releasing Yambert was reversed, and he was remanded to the custody of the appellant, the sheriff of the city of Manila.