G.R. No. 9601 - People vs Gacutan

On August 8, 1989, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose, Antique, issued an order assigning custody of private respondent Avelino T. Javellana to the Clerk of Court, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario.
The order was premised on a determination that there was sufficient reason for not detaining Javellana in the Antique Provincial Jail, allegedly due to perceived threats to his life.
The custody order stipulated that Javellana was to be held at Atty. del Rosario’s residence and was not to enjoy the liberty of roaming freely.

Despite the clear directive that Javellana be detained at Atty. del Rosario’s residence, he was not confined as ordered.
Instead, Javellana continued his normal activities, which included his engagement in the practice of law.
This ongoing liberty directly conflicted with the trial court’s mandate that he be held as a detention prisoner.

On July 16, 1990, during the pendency of Criminal Case No. 4262, Javellana sought permission to appear as counsel but was denied on the ground that his status as a detention prisoner barred him from practicing law.
On April 7, 1997, Senior State Prosecutor Henrick F. Guingoyon filed a motion for clarification, raising several issues:

Whether the July 30, 1990, resolution which prohibited Javellana from appearing as counsel pertained solely to Criminal Case No. 4262 or to other cases as well;
Whether Atty. del Rosario, now a judge, remained the proper custodian of Javellana; and
Whether Javellana, not being properly detained as mandated, should be considered an escapee or fugitive warranting immediate arrest.

The court “noted” this motion in a resolution dated June 18, 1997, although no immediate final determination on these issues was rendered at that time.

On August 2, 1999, Rolando Mijares filed a motion with the Regional Trial Court seeking the revocation of the custody order and calling for Javellana’s imprisonment in the Antique Provincial Jail.
On November 15, 1999, Javellana himself filed an urgent motion with the Supreme Court to clarify whether the June 18, 1997, resolution had finally resolved the state prosecutor’s motion for clarification.
Meanwhile, Javellana was arrested based on the filing of criminal cases against him, thereby placing him under the custody of the law.

The custody assignment originally given to Atty. del Rosario was rendered problematic when he transitioned to a judicial post, thereby necessitating the transfer of custodial responsibilities to his successor, namely the clerk of court.
The trial court order clearly stated that while detained, Javellana was not entitled to practice law except in circumstances where he personally appeared in court for his defense.
Consequently, the order intended to preclude Javellana from engaging in his professional practice and from enjoying the usual freedoms of a private citizen.

The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the August 8, 1989, custody order.
All accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355, including Javellana and Arturo F. Pacificador, were ordered to be detained in the Provincial Jail of Antique, San Jose, with a strict prohibition on leaving the jail except upon prior written permission for lawful purposes.
Given the protracted duration of the criminal cases (exceeding ten years), the trial court was ordered to proceed with the trial with deliberate dispatch to avoid further delays.

Whether the trial court’s order assigning custody to Atty. del Rosario (and its subsequent modification upon his appointment as judge) was properly implemented.
Whether Javellana’s failure to be detained at the designated residence constituted a grave abuse of discretion or a violation of procedural requirements.

Whether the prohibition for Javellana to practice law – originally applied in Criminal Case No. 4262 – should extend to his participation in all cases pending against him.
The judicial interpretation of the restriction on professional practice as a necessary corollary to being held in custody.

Whether Atty. del Rosario, having ascended to the judiciary, remained the proper custodian of Javellana, or whether this responsibility should have been transferred to another duly authorized officer (i.e., the succeeding clerk of court).
The implications of custodial lapses on the accused’s status as a detention prisoner.

Whether Javellana’s actions – appearing as counsel and engaging in normal social and professional activities – could be interpreted as fugitive behavior, warranting his reclassification as an escapee or fugitive of justice.
How the failure to fully comply with the detention order impacts the legal status and subsequent proceedings against the accused.

Given the delays spanning over ten years, whether the directive to fast-track the criminal cases adequately addressed the right to a speedy trial while ensuring proper detention protocols.