People of the Philippines vs. Pilotin

A change of venue or place of trial may be ordered under Section 5(4), Article X of the Constitution where the personal safety of the accused is imperilled by hostile sentiment at the place of trial, because the constitutional power extends to avoiding a miscarriage of justice.

Vincent Crisologo was the sole defendant in Criminal Case No. 3949 of the municipal court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. The case was set against a backdrop of political tension involving the Crisologo family in Ilocos Sur: his father, Congressman Floro Crisologo, had been shot to death while hearing mass at the Vigan cathedral, and some adherents of the Crisologos had been murdered in the province. Section 5(4), Article X of the Constitution vested the Supreme Court with authority to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Vincent Crisologo was the sole defendant in Criminal Case No. 3949 of the municipal court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, where he was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. Through counsel, he filed a verified motion praying for the transfer of the place of trial to the New Bilibid Prisons or, alternatively, to Camps Crame, Aguinaldo or Olivas.

In support of the motion, Crisologo alleged that his life would be in jeopardy if he were confined in the Vigan municipal jail during the trial because many political enemies of the Crisologo family were in that vicinity. He stated that some adherents of the Crisologos had in fact been murdered in Ilocos Sur and that his father, Congressman Floro Crisologo, was shot to death while hearing mass at the Vigan cathedral. He affirmed that inside that jail he would be a sitting duck for a gunwielder or grenade-thrower who wanted to assassinate him, and that he could even be lynched or shot to death on the specious pretext that he was trying to escape.

Asked to comment on the motion, the Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Sur signified his conformity to the transfer of the venue of the trial to the New Bilibid Prisons. According to Crisologo’s motion, the alleged evidence against him was in the custody of the authorities at Camp Crame, Quezon City.

• Threat to Life in Vigan Jail: Vincent Crisologo maintained that his life would be in jeopardy if he were confined in the Vigan municipal jail during the trial because many political enemies of the Crisologo family were in that vicinity; some adherents of the Crisologos had in fact been murdered in Ilocos Sur, and his father, Congressman Floro Crisologo, was shot to death while hearing mass at the Vigan cathedral.
• Risk of Assassination or Lynching: He affirmed that inside that jail he would be a sitting duck for a gunwielder or grenade-thrower who wanted to assassinate him, and could even be lynched or shot to death on the specious pretext that he was trying to escape.
• Requested Transfer: He prayed for transfer of the place of trial to the New Bilibid Prisons or, alternatively, to Camps Crame, Aguinaldo or Olivas.

• Change of Venue Due to Threat to Accused: Whether the place of trial of Criminal Case No. 3949 should be transferred from the municipal court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, because the accused’s life would be in jeopardy if he were confined in the Vigan municipal jail during trial.
• Constitutional Basis for Change of Venue: Whether the Supreme Court may order a change of venue or place of trial under Section 5(4), Article X of the Constitution to avoid a miscarriage of justice and to protect the personal safety of the accused.
• Proper Venue and Trial Arrangements: Whether the case should be transferred to the City Court of Quezon City and tried at Camp Crame, with the usual precautions and security measures.

• Change of Venue Due to Threat to Accused: Yes. The motion was meritorious; it would be absurd to compel Crisologo to undergo trial in a place where his life would be imperilled.
• Constitutional Basis for Change of Venue: Yes. Section 5(4), Article X of the Constitution expressly empowers the Supreme Court to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice; present hostile sentiment against the accused at the place of trial is a justification for transfer of venue.
• Proper Venue and Trial Arrangements: Yes. The change of venue involved transfer of the expediente of Criminal Case No. 3949 to another court; because the alleged evidence was in the custody of authorities at Camp Crame, Quezon City, transfer to the City Court of Quezon City and trial at Camp Crame appeared to be the most convenient arrangement.

• Change of Venue Due to Threat to Accused: The motion was found meritorious. What was involved was not merely a miscarriage of justice but the personal safety of movant Crisologo, the accused. It would be absurd to compel him to undergo trial in a place where his life would be imperilled. State vs. Siers was cited for the rule that present hostile sentiment against the accused at the place of trial is a justification for transfer of venue. The allegations of political enmity, murders of Crisologo adherents, and the killing of Congressman Floro Crisologo at the Vigan cathedral supported the conclusion that the Vigan municipal jail and vicinity posed a danger to Crisologo’s life. Thus, transfer was warranted.
• Constitutional Basis for Change of Venue: Section 5(4), Article X of the Constitution expressly empowers the Supreme Court to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The provision was applied because the motion implicated not only the fairness of the trial but the accused’s personal safety. The existence of hostile sentiment at the place of trial justified the exercise of the constitutional power.
• Proper Venue and Trial Arrangements: A change of venue involves not merely a change of the place of hearing but also the transfer of the expediente of Criminal Case No. 3949 to another court. According to Crisologo’s motion, the alleged evidence against him was in the custody of the authorities at Camp Crame, Quezon City. The transfer of the case to the City Court of Quezon City and the holding of trial at Camp Crame therefore appeared to be the most convenient arrangement. The municipal court of Vigan was directed to transfer the record to the City Court of Quezon City for re-docketing and raffling, and usual precautions and security measures were ordered in bringing Crisologo to Camp Crame.

• Change of Venue to Avoid Miscarriage of Justice — Section 5(4), Article X of the Constitution expressly empowers the Supreme Court to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. In this case, the Court applied the provision where the accused’s personal safety, not merely the fairness of the trial, was at stake. The Court held that it would be absurd to compel the accused to undergo trial in a place where his life would be imperilled.
• Hostile Sentiment as Ground for Transfer of Venue — Present hostile sentiment against the accused at the place of trial is a justification for transfer of venue. The Court relied on this principle, citing State vs. Siers, 136 S. E. 503, 103, W. Va. 30; 22 C.J.S. 310, and found that the alleged political enmity and killings in Ilocos Sur warranted transferring Crisologo’s case.
• Change of Venue Includes Transfer of Expediente — A change of venue involves not merely the change of the place of hearing but also the transfer of the expediente of the case to another court. The Court applied this by directing the municipal court of Vigan to transfer the record of Criminal Case No. 3949 to the City Court of Quezon City for re-docketing and raffling.

• "Section 5(4), Article X of the Constitution expressly empowers this Court to "order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice"." — States the constitutional basis for the Court’s authority to transfer venue.
• "Here, what is involved is not merely a miscarriage of justice but the personal safety of movant Crisologo, the accused. It would be absurd to compel him to undergo trial in a place where his life would be imperilled." — Articulates the ratio: the Court extended change of venue to protect the accused’s life.
• "Present hostile sentiment against the accused at the place of trial is a justification for transfer of venue (See State vs. Siers, 136 S. E. 503, 103, W. Va. 30; 22 C.J.S. 310)." — States the doctrinal rule on hostile sentiment as a ground for transfer.
• "The change of venue involves not merely the change of the place of hearing but also the transfer of the expediente of Criminal Case No. 3949 to another court." — Explains the procedural effect of a change of venue.

• State vs. Siers, 136 S. E. 503, 103, W. Va. 30; 22 C.J.S. 310 — Cited by the Court for the rule that present hostile sentiment against the accused at the place of trial is a justification for transfer of venue. The Court relied on it in granting Crisologo’s motion.

• Section 5(4), Article X of the Constitution — Expressly empowers the Supreme Court to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The Court applied it to transfer the trial of Criminal Case No. 3949 from the municipal court of Vigan to the City Court of Quezon City because the accused’s personal safety was imperilled.

• Makalintal, C.J.
• Fernando, J.
• Barredo, J.
• Concepcion Jr., J.

Antonio, J., took no part.