University of the Philippines

COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law 1 | Prof. Alberto Muyot
CASE DIGEST for F2021

Topic Administrative powers of the Judiciary Branch: Order a change of venue or place of trial
to avoid miscarriage of justice
Doctrine
Case No. G.R. No. L-41313 / 6 November 1975
Case Name ALIPIO MONDIGUING and ANDRES DUNUAN, petitioners
vs.
HON. FRANCISCO MEN ABAD, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ifugao; PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES; MARIANO PACTIW, alias Bugbug; DULMOG ABLUYEN and
ANGEINA ABLUYEN, respondents
Ponente AQUINO, J. (Second Division)

RELEVANT FACTS

 Petitioners Alipio Mondiguing and Andres Dunuan, two of the ten defendants accused of double
murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder in the Ifugao Court of First Instance, sought a
transfer of the venue of the case to Baguio City or Quezon City, on the ground that they could
not expect a fair and impartial trial in said court, because respondent Judge Francisco Men Abad
is a protégée of the Ifugao Provincial Governor Gualberto Lumauig, one of the victims
mentioned in the incident.

 They further claimed that their witnesses are afraid to testify for fear of harassment and
reprisals, and that their lives and those of their witnesses and lawyers are in grave danger in
Ifugao because of the tensions and antagonisms spawned by the case and political rivalry
between the Governor’s faction and that to which the petitioners belong. In fact, in an election
case involving the Governor, the Supreme Court disqualified respondent Judge, who was found
to be a political leader of, and was recommended to his present position by the governor and
his brother.

ISSUE

 W/N Mondiguing’s plea for a change of venue is justified

RATIO DECIDENDI

ISSUE RATIO
W/N Mondiguing’s plea YES.
for a change of venue is The Court “possesses inherent power and jurisdiction to decree that the
justified trial and disposition of a case pending in a Court of First Instance be
transferred to another Court of First Instance within the same district
whenever the interest of justice and truth so demand, and there are
serious and weighty reasons to believe that a trial by the court that
originally had jurisdiction over the case would not result in a fair and
impartial trial and lead to a miscarriage of justice.” In the present case, it
was shown that the accused might be liquidated by his enemies in the
place where the trial was originally scheduled to be held.
 University of the Philippines
COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law 1 | Prof. Alberto Muyot
CASE DIGEST for F2021

RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition of Alipio Mondiguing for the transfer of the venue of Criminal Case No.
140 of the Court of First Instance of Ifugao is granted. The said case should be transferred to the Circuit
Criminal Court of the Second Judicial District so that it may be heard in Baguio City.

NOTES

Grounds for transfer of venue: A change of the place of trial in criminal cases should not be granted for
whimsical or flimsy reasons. The interests of the public require that, to secure the best results and
effects in the punishment of crime, it is necessary to prosecute and punish the criminal in the very place
as near as may be, where he committed his crime.

RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION (1973):

Art. 10. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
xxx
Sec 5 (4). Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

COUNTERPART IN THE 1987 CONSTITUTION:

Art. 8. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

xxx
Sec 5 (4). Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.