Case Summary (G.R. No. L-42428)
Procedural History
The trial for the charged crime concluded on August 4, 1975, when the accused rested his case. Both legal counsels subsequently requested an extension of time to submit their respective memoranda, which the trial court granted, allowing thirty days for submission. While the petitioner’s counsel filed the memorandum on time, the prosecution did not submit theirs. On November 28, 1975, the respondent judge filed his decision with the Deputy Clerk of Court.
Jurisdiction and Promulgation Issues
On the scheduled date of decision promulgation, Marcelino's counsel moved to postpone, claiming a loss of jurisdiction due to the court's failure to decide the matter within the constitutional time frame of 90 days from submission. The respondent judge reset the promulgation to January 19, 1976, and again to January 26, 1976. Meanwhile, on January 12, 1976, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to prevent the promulgation of the decision.
Court's Analysis on Jurisdiction
The petitioner argues that the court lost jurisdiction due to non-compliance with the 90-day decision period mandated by Section 11[1] of Article X of the 1973 Constitution. However, the court clarified that the filing of the decision with the clerk of court on November 28, 1975, falls within the prescribed period, thereby negating the claim of jurisdiction loss.
Distinction Between Filing and Promulgation
The distinction between the mere filing of a judgment and its promulgation is critical. The court emphasized that the constitutional provision refers to the decision's filing date rather than the promulgation date, which entails sending notices to parties involved. Hence, the conclusion was drawn that jurisdictions remain intact even if judgments are promulgated post the 90-day interval.
Directory versus Mandatory Provisions
The court discussed the need to determine the nature of the constitutional provision—whether it is mandatory or directory. It noted that constitutional provisions are generally construed as mandatory unless explicitly stated otherwise. However, in context, it was interpreted that the provision is directory, allowing for departures from strict compliance without rendering the judgment void. Administrative actions against errant judges are the expected consequence rather than a loss of jurisdiction.
Guidance for Future Cases
Despite r
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-42428)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for prohibition and a writ of habeas corpus filed by Bernardino Marcelino against Judge Fernando Cruz, Jr. and other respondents.
- The petition seeks to prevent the judge from promulgating his decision in Criminal Case No. C-5910 and for the release of the petitioner from detention.
- The basis for the petition is the alleged loss of jurisdiction of the trial court due to its failure to decide the case within the 90-day period mandated by the 1973 Constitution.
Factual Background
- Bernardino Marcelino was charged with rape before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XII.
- The trial concluded on August 4, 1975, when the accused rested his case.
- Both parties requested a 30-day period to submit their respective memoranda, which the trial court granted.
- The petitioner submitted his memorandum on time; however, the prosecution failed to do so.
- On November 28, 1975, the respondent judge filed his decision with the Deputy Clerk of Court, dated the same day, prior to the alleged expiration of the 90-day period.
Procedural History
- A certification dated January 26, 1976, indicated that notices regarding the decision's promulgation were sent to all relevant parties, and those notices were received in early December 1975.
- On the scheduled date for promulgation, the petitioner’s counsel moved for a postponement, citing the alleged loss of jurisdiction.
- The judge granted the request and rescheduled the promulgation to January 19, 1976, and later to January 26, 1976.
- Subsequently, on January 12, 1976, the petitioner fil