Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Maceda
Case
G.R. No. 89591-96
Decision Date
Jan 24, 2000
A lawyer detained under a custody order continued practicing law, leading to a Supreme Court ruling revoking the order, detaining him in jail, and prohibiting his legal practice except in self-defense cases.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 89591-96)

Custody and Detention Orders

On August 8, 1989, the trial court ordered that Avelino T. Javellana be held in custody by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, rather than in the Antique Provincial Jail. This order was intended to ensure Javellana's safety, as there were perceived threats to his life, and he was to remain under strict detention at Atty. del Rosario's residence. However, compliance with this order was lacking, as Javellana was observed to be engaging in normal activities, including practicing law, which contravened the terms of his custody.

Subsequent Legal Developments

After further developments, including a motion for clarification filed by Senior State Prosecutor Henrick F. Guingoyon, questions arose regarding the scope and enforcement of the previous orders. The Supreme Court noted the motion but subsequently denied a motion for reconsideration on September 8, 1999. The Regional Trial Court then resumed hearings on Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355, amid ongoing issues concerning Javellana's compliance with his custodial status.

Motion for Revocation of Custody

On August 2, 1999, Rolando Mijares filed a motion seeking to revoke the custody order and to have Javellana detained at the provincial jail. In light of further legal inquiries and the unenforced orders regarding his imprisonment, Javellana sought clarification from the Supreme Court whether the earlier resolutions had definitively concluded the related motions filed by the State Prosecutor.

Jurisdiction and Detention Status

As of the issuance of the resolution, since Javellana had been arrested and was deemed under the custody of the law, he was no longer under the personal custody of Atty. del Rosario, who by then had been appointed as a judge. Hence, the responsibility for Javellana’s detention fell to the succeeding clerk of court. Consequently, the court determined that the conditions warranting Javellana's protective custody had dissipated, necessitating his transfer to the Provincial Jail of Antique.

Prohibition on Practicing Law

Regarding Javellana's participation in legal practice, the Supreme Court clarified that as a detention prisoner, he was barred from practicing law, consistent with his custodial status. The order restricting his movements made it clear that he was not permitted to roam freely, which included participation in legal proceedings beyond those where he represented himself as a defendant.

Directive for Expedient Trial

Given that Criminal Cases Nos. 3350

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.