SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. 16-07-242-RTC. August 24, 2016.]
RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE OF CRIM. CASE NO. 15-147-W FROM REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, WAO, LANAO DEL SUR TO ANY REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MARAWI CITY
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 24 August 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 16-07-242-RTC: RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE OF CRIM. CASE NO. 15-147-W FROM REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, WAO, LANAO DEL SUR TO ANY REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MARAWI CITY
This resolves a Petition 1 for change of venue of Criminal Case No. 15-147-W for violation of Republic Act No. 9262, 2 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004, from Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court, Wao, Lanao del Sur to any branch of the Regional Trial Court in Marawi City.
On October 21, 2014, Rocaya L. Saranga (Rocaya) filed a complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 against Sultan Lomala Saranga (Saranga). 3 This was docketed as Criminal Case No. 15-147-W and was raffled to Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Wao, Lanao Del Sur. 4
On April 22, 2015, Rocaya filed a Petition for change of venue of trial from Branch 26, Regional Trial Court of Wao, Lanao Del Sur to any branch of the Regional Trial Court in Marawi City. 5
Rocaya alleges that Saranga is a native of and is influential in Wao, Lanao del Sur. 6 She also alleges that Saranga, over the phone, repeatedly threatened to kill her. 7
Rocaya states that because of Saranga's constant threats, she will be unable to attend any of the scheduled hearings to her disadvantage. 8 She prays that, for her safety and for a full-blown trial of the case, the trial should be transferred to Marawi City, where Saranga will not be able to harm her. 9
On May 15, 2015, the Office of the Court Administrator referred the Petition to Judge Pundaya M. Berua, Presiding Judge of Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Wao, Lanao del Sur for comment. 10 Judge Pundaya M. Berua was directed to require the public prosecutor, the private prosecutor (if any), and Saranga to comment on the Petition. 11
Saranga, in compliance with the Order 12 dated July 20, 2015, filed his Comment 13 on the Petition for change of venue.
Saranga denied threatening to kill Rocaya. 14 He states that Rocaya's failure to avail herself of a temporary protection order from the barangay or the Regional Trial Court belies her claims that her life is in danger. 15
Saranga likewise claims that the Petition for change of venue is a form of dilatory tactic and is intended to harass him. 16 Furthermore, he asserts that with a change of venue, he will experience "tremendous hardship" and expenses since Marawi City is about 350 to 400 kilometers away from his residence in Wao. 17
On July 31, 2015, Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Wao, Lanao Del Sur issued the Order 18 noting Saranga's Comment and the prosecutor's failure to file a comment. The Regional Trial Court ruled that the prosecutor effectively waived its right to present its side. The trial court also submitted that the trial of the criminal case for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 be held in the court where the crime was committed. 19 ETHIDa
In its report 20 dated June 16, 2016, the Office of the Court Administrator noted that Rocaya failed to substantiate her allegations of threats on her life and that Saranga is influential in Wao, Lanao del Sur. 21 It recommended that the Petition for change of venue be denied for lack of merit. 22
We disagree. A change of venue is in order.
Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph (4) of the 1987 Constitution provides that this Court may order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice. Where there are serious reasons that would prevent the court of original jurisdiction from conducting a fair and impartial trial, this Court is mandated to order a change of venue to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 23
In A.M. No. 09-12-507-RTC, 24 this Court held that "[a]mong the reasons sufficient to justify a change of venue is the reluctance of witness to testify out of fear for their personal security." 25
Saranga, the accused, is a Sultan, hence a member of the ruling class and elite in Lanao del Sur. This alone gives credence to Rocaya's claim of Saranga's influence and reach in Wao, Lanao del Sur.
Furthermore, Saranga himself points out that Rocaya has moved her residence three (3) times, thus:
3. This petition is clearly a dilatory tactics [sic] intended to harass the accused, evidence[d] by the following facts, to wit:
a. Petitioner is a resident of Western, Wao, Lanao del Sur as contained in her Affidavit-Complaint dated October 21, 2014;
b. She subsequently informed this Honorable Court on January 26, 2015 that she had a change of address from Western, Wao, Lanao del Sur to Barangay Natangkupan, Bumbaran, Lanao del Sur, where any communication may be sent thereat;
c. Again, in her petition for change of venue dated April 4, 2015, petitioner changed her residence from Barangay Natangkupan, Bumbaran, Lanao del Sur to Maguing, Lanao del Sur.
d. Change of residence has no impact on this case as the intention of the petitioner is to financially harass the accused, and the same self-serving scheme will not automatically divest this Honorable Court to hear and decide the instant case in the absence of a clear showing that a trial by this Court will result in an unfair, partial trial and lead to a miscarriage of justice. 26
Saranga claims that Rocaya's repeated change of residence is merely a self-serving scheme to harass him. On the contrary, Rocaya's constant movement can be seen as her way of protecting herself from what she perceives as threats to her safety.
Saranga asserts that he will encounter "tremendous hardship" and added financial expenses in travelling to Marawi City because of its considerable distance from his residence in Wao, Lanao Del Sur. 27 This is undisputed. Rocaya will also experience the same financial strain and hardship if the venue is moved to Marawi City. Despite this, however, she still chose to file a petition to move the venue. This bolsters her claim that if the venue of the case for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 remains in Wao, Lanao del Sur, she will be unable to attend the scheduled hearings because of the threats to her life and Saranga's influence in their community.
The intent of Republic Act No. 9262 is the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and children. Hence, the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as judges of trial courts handling cases of violence against women and children, should not take allegations of victims lightly. The Office of the Court Administrator and judges of trial courts should not require more than these victims' credible testimony. In such cases, the alleged possible danger to these victims' lives should be a more critical imperative than which trial court should hear the case. The Office of the Court Administrator and judges of trial courts should reasonably err on the side of caution. cSEDTC
WHEREFORE, this Court resolves to RELIEVE Judge Pundaya M. Berua, Presiding Judge of Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Wao, Lanao del Sur, of the authority to hear and decide Criminal Case No. 15-147-W.
The Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Wao, Lanao del Sur is DIRECTED to immediately forward the records of the case to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Marawi City. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Marawi City is, in turn, DIRECTED to immediately raffle the case among the different judges of the court.
SO ORDERED.(Brion, J., on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 4-5.
2. Rep. Act No. 9262 (2004), An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes.
3. Rollo, p. 4.
4. Id.
5. Id. at 4-5.
6. Id. at 4.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 6.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 15.
13. Id. at 11-12.
14. Id. at 11.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 12.
18. Id. at 10.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 1-3.
21. Id. at 2.
22. Id. at 3.
23. Mondiguing v. Judge Abad, 160-A Phil. 672, 675 (1975) [Per J. Aquino, Second Division].
24. Re: Request for the Transfer of Venue of Criminal Case Nos. SL-195 to 214, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr., et al.," from the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Cotabato City, to any of the Regional Trial Courts in Metro Manila, Either in Quezon City or Manila, A.M. No. 09-12-507-RTC, December 8, 2009 [Unsigned Resolution, En Banc].
25. Id., citing People v. Pilotin, 160 Phil. 651, 653 (1975) [Per J. Aquino, Second Division].
26. Rollo, pp. 11-12.
27. Id. at 12.