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...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Calixto Berbari, the petitioner, filed a petition seeking an order to:
• Prohibit the respondent judge from proceeding with the trial of a criminal case until assessors are appointed in accordance with the law;
• Require the judge to appoint such assessors once a proper written application is made.
• The petition was directed against Judge Pedro Concepcion of the Court of First Instance of Manila and the prosecuting attorney of the City of Manila.

Statutory Provisions Invoked

• Section 154 of Act No. 190
• Provides that “either party to an action may apply in writing to the judge for assessors to sit in the trial.”
• Mandates that “upon the filing of such application the judge shall direct that assessors be provided,” thereby setting up a process for their selection.
• Section 2477 of Act No. 2711
• Adapts the procedure for the appointment of assessors for both civil and criminal trials in the City of Manila.
• Requires the municipal board to prepare and maintain a complete list of qualified residents for such purposes, ensuring that the assessors are selected from a comprehensive set of names.

Application and Proceedings

• The petitioner applied for assessors in the proper legal form before the trial began.
• The application was filed in accordance with the written request requirement stipulated by section 154.
• The petitioner argued that the appointment of assessors was mandatory once such a request was made.
• The respondent judge had offered to appoint assessors from an incomplete list, prompting an argument that the petitioner should have consented to the incomplete list.
• The issue of timing was raised:
• The petitioner’s request for assessors was made on the morning of the day fixed for trial (September 2, 1919).
• The petitioner contended that he had not been aware of his client’s desire for assessors until the night before the request, making the filing timely and opportunely made.
• Additional procedural considerations included the concern that delay in appointing assessors might hinder the trial’s schedule.
• The court noted that adjournments had been previously granted at the petitioner's request, and that the delay was not solely attributable to the application for assessors.

Arguments Presented by the Parties

• Petitioner’s Argument
• The statutory provisions clearly mandate that once a written application is filed, the judge must provide for the appointment of assessors.
• The petition asserts that there is no judicial discretion to deny such an application, as the law’s wording (“shall direct”) makes the appointment obligatory.
• Respondents’ Argument
• It was argued that the application for assessors was either untimely or was strategically made to delay the trial.
• The incomplete list offered for selection was cited as a reason to question the petitioner’s entitlement to the relief prayed for.
• The respondents maintained that, irrespective of timing, procedural rules should be strictly observed, potentially allowing the judge discretion if the proper conditions were not met.

Issue:

Whether section 154 of Act No. 190, in conjunction with section 2477 of Act No. 2711, requires the judge of the Court of First Instance in Manila to appoint assessors in a criminal case upon a properly made written request.

• Does the statutory language (“shall direct that assessors be provided”) leave any judicial discretion to deny such a request?
• Is the appointment of assessors mandatory once a timely application is made by a party?

The Timing and Validity of the Application

• Whether the request for the appointment of assessors was made in a timely manner prior to the trial’s commencement.
• Whether the petitioner’s argument regarding the lack of pre-trial notice (and subsequent waiver) holds merit in light of the statutory directive.

The Issue of an Incomplete List

• Whether the judge’s offer to use an incomplete list of assessors invalidates the petitioner’s right to have assessors appointed from a complete list.
• Whether the selection process can still be deemed fair when the list is incomplete if all parties do not consent to its use.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)