People v.

Azarraga
G.R. No. 187117 and 187127, 12 October 2011 (J. Sereno)

FACTS:

Petitioner People of the Philippines filed two (2) Informations with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) against the private respondent John Rey Prevendido for violation of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. Pursuant to R.A. No. 9165, the cases
were raffled to the designated special court, Branch 36. However, the assigned judge inhibited
from the case due to having close family ties with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) operative who conducted the entrapment operations against the private respondent.
The cases were then re-assigned to another designated special court, but the new judge also
inhibited from the case for the reason that the PDEA operative was her cousin.

Then, citing Chapter V, Sec. 9 of Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 03-8-02-SC, Executive
Judge Natino ordered that the case be forwarded to Branch 37, a regular court, presided over by
public respondent Judge Azarraga, who is the pairing judge of Branch 36, or the special court
which originally handled the case. As soon as the respondent judge started hearing the case,
petitioner filed a Motion to Transfer Case to a Branch of Competent Jurisdiction, which was
denied. Thus, this Petition for Prohibition.

Petitioner argues that according to Section 90 of R.A. No. 9165, amended, only specially
designated courts can handle cases involving violations of R.A. No. 9165, and A.M. No. 03-8-02-
SC is inapplicable for being a circumvention of the legislative conferment of jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court violated Section 90 of R.A. 9165 when it issued A.M. 03-8-02-SC,
particularly Chapter V, Sec. 9, which prescribes the manner in which the executive judge
reassigns cases in instances of inhibition or disqualification of judges sitting in special courts.

HELD:

No. On the contrary, the Court only complied with Article VIII, Sec. 5(5) of the 1987
Constitution, which mandates that the rules promulgated by this Court should provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, in conformity with
the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.

In this case, Chapter V, Sec 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC requires the express designation of
a special court in compliance with Section 90 of R.A. 9165. Under R.A. No. 9165, Congress
empowered the Court with the full discretion to designate special courts to hear, try and decide
drug cases. It was precisely in the exercise of this discretionary power that the powers of the
executive judge were included in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC. Hence, in cases of inhibition or
disqualification, the executive judge is mandated to assign the drug case to a regular court in
the following order: first, to the pairing judge of the special court where the case was originally
assigned; and, second, if the pairing judge is likewise disqualified or has inhibited himself, then
to another regular court through a raffle. Under these exceptional circumstances, the court
properly designated the regular court, ipso facto, as a special court – but only for that case.