Change of Venue: Paragraph 4

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
HON. MARIO J. GUTIERREZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, CAMILO PILOTIN,
FRANCISCO PIANO, DELFIN PIANO PEDRO PATAO, VINCENT CRISOLOGO, CAMILO PIANO, CAMILO
PATAO, PEDRING PIANO, ISIDRO PUGAL, ANTONIO TABULDO, LORENZO PERALTA, VENANCIO
PACLEB ANTONIO PIANO, FERMIN PUGAL, CARLITO PUGAL, FLOR PIANO, ERNING ABANO and
EIGHTY-TWO (82) JOHN DOES, respondents.

G.R. Nos. L-32282-83 November 26, 1970

REYES, J.B.L., J.

POINT OF THE CASE:

The Supreme Court has the power to order a change venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In 1970, a group of armed persons attacked and burned several residential houses in two barrios of the municipality
of Bantay, Province of Ilocos Sur. After investigation by the authorities, the prosecution charged 17 men and 82
unidentified persons with arson in the Court of First Instance of Vigan, Ilocos Sur.

The Secretary of Justice issued Administrative Order No. 221, authorizing Judge Gutierrez to transfer the criminal
case in the Circuit Criminal Court. The prosecution invoked such administrative order since witnesses refused to
appear in court for fear of their safety. They cited as reasons the 82 unidentified suspects who are still at large and
the influence of one of the accused, Vincente Crisologo, whose father is the Congressman of the First District of
Ilocos Sur and whose mother is the governor. Moreover, the promotion and confirmation of Judge Gutierrez from
Clerk of Court to Judge were actively supported by the parents of the accused, Vicente Crisologo.

The accused vigorously opposed the transfer. Judge Gutierrez declined the transfer and claimed that Administrative
Order No. 221 only authorizes him to transfer but not commands or requires him to do so. He also stated that the
circumstances cited by the prosecution do not justify such transfer. The prosecution thus resorted to Supreme Court
for a writ of certiorari and mandamus so that the cases may be tried in La Union or Baguio City.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court could transfer the trial to another place

RULING:
Yes. The act of the Secretary of Justice to issue an order for the respondent court to transfer the criminal cases in
the Circuit Criminal Court trenches upon the time-honored separation of the Executive and the Judiciary and would
endanger the rights and immunities of the accused or civil party.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, possesses inherent power and jurisdiction to decree that the 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. Thus, in the present case, there are sufficient and adequate reasons for
the transfer of the hearing of Criminal Cases Nos. 47-V and 48-V of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur to the
Circuit Criminal Court of the Second Judicial District, in the interest of truth and justice.

The writs of certiorari and mandamus prayed for are granted. Administrative Order No. 221 of the Department of
Justice is not mandatory, but only directory. Nevertheless, there was grave abuse of discretion and set aside in so
far as the respondent Court declines to transfer the trial of the cases to another court within the district. The
respondent Court is accordingly directed and ordered to remand the two criminal cases aforesaid to the Circuit
Criminal Court of the Second Judicial District for hearing of the evidence for the prosecution either in Baguio or San
Fernando, La Union.