Case Digest (G.R. No. 222159)
Facts:
The United States v. Jose C. Abreu, Ponciano Remigio, Jose Leon, Jose Gomez Arce, Antonio Dizon, and Lucas Guevara, G.R. No. 10252, March 26, 1915, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The petition is an application for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel respondent Judge Jose C. Abreu to decide a criminal case that had been tried before another judge.
On December 6, 1913 the auxiliary fiscal of the City of Manila filed a complaint charging respondents Remigio, Leon, Gomez Arce, Dizon and Guevara with estafa. The accused were arrested, arraigned, and their trial proceeded before Judge Charles S. Lobingier, then presiding in the criminal branch of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of the City of Manila. On January 23, 1914 Judge Lobingier closed the trial and ordered a certified stenographic transcript to be prepared and furnished to the parties; he fixed a schedule for the filing of the prosecution’s and then the defendants’ written arguments.
The stenographic transcript was completed April 7, 1914. On May 14, 1914 the prosecution filed its argument; the defendants did not file theirs. On February 14, 1914 (earlier in the chronicle of appointments) Judge Lobingier was appointed judge of the United States District Court in China and thus vacated his position. On July 1, 1914 Judge Jose C. Abreu became one of the judges of the CFI of the City of Manila presiding over the criminal branch.
On July 7, 1914 the prosecuting attorney moved that Judge Abreu fix a date for decision after hearing defendants and receiving any new proof; that motion remained undecided and was later withdrawn. On August 18, 1914 the prosecution moved that the case be decided on the proof already on file; after hearing on August 21, 1914, Judge Abreu on September 9, 1914 denied that motion, holding that under Act No. 2347 he was without jurisdiction to decide a cause tried and pending decision before a judge appointed under the prior law.
The petitioner then applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Abreu to decide the cause on the existing record. The respondents demurred to the petition, contending that it failed to state a cause of action because, they argued, under Act No. 2347 the courts organiz...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a writ of mandamus proper to compel a judge appointed under Act No. 2347 to decide a criminal case that had been tried and was pending decision before another judge?
- Under Act No. 2347, did the reorganization abolish the old Courts of First Instance so that a newly appointed judge lacks authority to decide cases theretofore tried and pending decision, and relatedly, may a judge who did not personally see or...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)