Case Digest (G.R. No. 15766)
Facts:
The case of Calixto Berbari vs. The Hon. Pedro Concepcion, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and the Prosecuting Attorney of the City of Manila, was decided on October 24, 1919. The petitioner, Calixto Berbari, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Concepcion from proceeding with the trial of a criminal case without first appointing assessors, as mandated by Section 154 of Act No. 190 in relation to Section 2477 of Act No. 2711. The petitioner argued that he had made a timely request for the appointment of assessors, which the judge had not honored. The lower court had previously granted adjournments at the request of the petitioner, and the trial was set for September 2, 1919. On September 1, the attorney for the petitioner submitted a request for assessors, claiming he only learned of his client's desire for assessors the night before. The respondents contended that the request was made too late and was intended to delay the trial. The judge had of...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 15766)
Facts:
- Petitioner's Request for Assessors: Calixto Berbari, the petitioner, filed a petition seeking an order to prohibit the respondent judge, Hon. Pedro Concepcion, from proceeding with the trial of a criminal case without first appointing assessors as required by law. He also requested the court to mandate the appointment of such assessors.
- Legal Basis: The petitioner relied on Section 154 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) in relation to Section 2477 of Act No. 2711 (Administrative Code), which allows either party in a civil or criminal case to request the appointment of assessors.
- Respondents' Admission: The respondents admitted the facts alleged in the petition but provided certain explanations. The primary issue was whether the appointment of assessors was mandatory upon request.
- Timing of the Request: The petitioner requested the appointment of assessors on September 1, 1919, one day before the scheduled trial on September 2, 1919. The petitioner's attorney claimed he was unaware of his client's desire for assessors until the night before the request was made.
- Incomplete List of Assessors: The respondent judge offered to appoint assessors from an incomplete list, but the petitioner insisted on a completed list as required by law.
Issue:
- Mandatory Nature of Section 154: Does Section 154 of Act No. 190, in relation to Section 2477 of Act No. 2711, require the judge to appoint assessors upon request in a criminal case?
- Discretion of the Judge: Does the judge have discretion to deny a request for assessors, or is the appointment mandatory upon proper application?
- Timeliness of the Request: Was the petitioner's request for assessors made in a timely manner, or was it intended to delay the trial?
- Incomplete List of Assessors: Was the petitioner entitled to insist on a completed list of assessors, or should he have accepted assessors from an incomplete list?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that:
- Mandatory Appointment of Assessors: The provisions of Section 154 of Act No. 190, in relation to Section 2477 of Act No. 2711, are mandatory. When a proper application for assessors is made, the judge must appoint them.
- No Discretion to Deny: The judge has no discretion to deny a request for assessors if the application is made in accordance with the law.
- Timeliness of the Request: The request for assessors was made opportunely, as it was submitted before the trial began. The delay in the trial was not attributable to the petitioner.
- Completed List of Assessors: The petitioner had the right to insist on a completed list of assessors, as required by law, unless all parties agreed to use an incomplete list.
Ratio:
- Mandatory Language of the Law: The use of the word "shall" in Section 154 indicates that the appointment of assessors is mandatory upon proper application. The legislature intended no discretion for the judge in this matter.
- Right to Assessors: The law provides a form of jury trial for defendants in criminal cases in Manila. The right to assessors is a statutory right that can be waived if not requested, but once requested, it must be granted.
- Timeliness of Application: The law does not specify a deadline for requesting assessors, but the request must be made before the trial begins. The petitioner's request was timely and not intended to delay the trial.
- Completed List Requirement: The law requires that assessors be selected from a completed list unless all parties agree otherwise. The petitioner was justified in insisting on a completed list.
Dissent
Justice Malcolm dissented, arguing that:
- Statutory Right, Not Constitutional: The right to assessors is a statutory right, not a constitutional one, and must be exercised within the limits set by law.
- Timeliness and Notice: He favored interpreting the law to require that requests for assessors be made at least three days before the trial, in line with court rules, to avoid delays.
- Potential for Abuse: Allowing last-minute requests for assessors could lead to abuse and unnecessary delays in court proceedings.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court granted the petitioner's request for a writ of prohibition, mandating the appointment of assessors from a completed list. The decision emphasized the mandatory nature of the law and the petitioner's right to a timely and proper selection of assessors.