G.R. No. 192048 - Anama vs. Citibank, N.A.

The Resolution was issued in view of the pressing public policy and public interest in ensuring the expeditious resolution of criminal cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended.
It identified a significant delay in the resolution of drugs cases in various branches of the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) in urban areas, particularly where the imposable penalty was lower than death.
The resolution recognized that drugs cases involving the death penalty were already assigned to designated heinous crimes courts, thereby isolating the lower-penalty cases that still suffered from procedural delays.

Branch 10 of the RTC of Cebu City was selected and designated as a Special Court for conducting trials of drugs cases where the imposable penalty is lower than death.
The selection of Cebu City as the pilot area was based on the observation that a number of drugs cases were pending in its various RTC branches, which warranted an immediate administrative intervention.
The designation aimed at consolidating cases to enhance the efficiency and speed of judicial proceedings in matters involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Judges of RTC branches (except those designated as heinous crimes courts) in Cebu City were instructed to prepare an inventory of all criminal cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

The inventory was to include pertinent details such as case number, filing date, arraignment date, and the current status of each case (for arraignment, pre-trial, or decision).
The inventory was to be submitted within ten days from receipt of the Resolution to the Office of the Chief Justice, the Office of the Court Administrator, the Executive Judge of the RTC of Cebu City, and to Honorable Judge Soliver C. Peras.

Cases that were at the stage of arraignment, pre-trial, or where the defense had yet to commence the reception of evidence were to be transferred to Branch 10.

The transfer including the corresponding records was mandated to be completed within thirty days following the submission of the inventory.

The Resolution further provided that post-transfer, Branch 10 would be credited with these drugs cases and would be excluded from subsequent raffles for new cases.

Branches losing cases to Branch 10 were to receive appropriate replacements through a systematic raffle process administered by the Executive Judge of the RTC of Cebu City.

Additionally, all new information and cases for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act filed after 30 August 1999 in the RTC of Cebu City were to be directly assigned to Branch 10.

The Resolution was promulgated on 3 August 1999 and was to take effect on 1 September 1999.
The promulgation was supported by the concurring opinions of the Judges present, including the Chief Justices and other members of the en banc panel such as Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.

Whether the designation of Branch 10 of the RTC of Cebu City as a Special Court for drugs cases (with imposable penalty lower than death) is in consonance with the constitutional mandate and public policy for expeditious justice.
Whether the division of cases based on the severity of the penalties aligns with the judicial strategy to expedite resolutions.

Whether the guidelines for the inventory and transfer of pending cases adhere to proper judicial administration protocols.
Whether the exclusion of Branch 10 from future raffles of cases, post-transfer, is justified under the principles of equitable case distribution.

Whether the comprehensive system to reassign and manage pending cases—through inventory, transfer, and replacement—effectively addresses the backlog in drugs cases.
Whether the measure upholds the principles of judicial efficiency and expedited criminal adjudication.