People vs. Maceda

A detention prisoner, whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence, cannot practice his profession, engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, as a necessary consequence of arrest and detention. The prohibition on the practice of law by a detention prisoner applies to all cases and not merely to a particular criminal case, except where the detention prisoner appears in court to defend himself.

Avelino T. Javellana was among the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355, pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose, Antique, presided over by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. Due to perceived threats to Javellana's life, the trial court issued an order on August 8, 1989 placing him under the custody of the Clerk of Court, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, to be detained at del Rosario's residence rather than at the Antique Provincial Jail. The order expressly provided that Javellana was not to be allowed liberty to roam around but was to be held as a detention prisoner in said residence.

Avelino T. Javellana was among the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355, pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose, Antique, presided over by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. On August 8, 1989, the trial court issued an order giving custody over Javellana to the Clerk of Court, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during the pendency of the criminal cases. The order was premised on sufficient reason why Javellana should not be detained at the Antique Provincial Jail, specifically perceived threats to his life. The order required that Javellana be held as a detention prisoner at del Rosario's residence and that he was not to be allowed liberty to roam around.

The trial court's order was not strictly complied with. Javellana was never actually detained at del Rosario's residence. Instead, he went about his normal activities as if he were a free man, including engaging in the practice of law. Despite a Supreme Court resolution dated July 30, 1990 prohibiting Javellana from appearing as counsel in Criminal Case No. 4262, he accepted cases and continued practicing law.

On April 7, 1997, Senior State Prosecutor Henrick F. Guingoyon filed a motion with the Supreme Court seeking clarification on three questions: whether the July 30, 1990 prohibition referred only to Criminal Case No. 4262; whether Atty. del Rosario, who had since been appointed judge, was still Javellana's custodian; and whether Javellana should be considered an escapee or fugitive from justice given that del Rosario never actually detained him. The Court "noted" this motion on June 18, 1997. After the Court denied the motion for reconsideration on September 8, 1999, the trial court resumed hearing the criminal cases. On August 2, 1999, Rolando Mijares filed a motion seeking revocation of the custody order and Javellana's imprisonment in the provincial jail. On November 15, 1999, Javellana filed an urgent motion seeking to clarify whether the June 18, 1997 resolution had finally terminated or resolved the State Prosecutor's motion for clarification.

• Clarification of Custody Order: The People, through Senior State Prosecutor Henrick F. Guingoyon, sought clarification on whether the July 30, 1990 prohibition on Javellana's appearance as counsel referred only to Criminal Case No. 4262, whether del Rosario remained Javellana's custodian after his appointment as judge, and whether Javellana should be considered an escapee or fugitive from justice given that he was never actually detained.
• Revocation of Custody Order: Rolando Mijares filed a motion seeking the revocation of the trial court's custody order and the imprisonment of Javellana in the provincial jail.

• Clarification of June 18, 1997 Resolution: Javellana filed an urgent motion seeking to clarify whether the June 18, 1997 resolution finally terminated or resolved the motion for clarification filed by the State Prosecutor on April 7, 1997.

• Custody of Detention Prisoner: Whether the trial court's August 8, 1989 custody order placing Javellana under the custody of the Clerk of Court should be recalled and whether he should instead be detained at the provincial jail.
• Practice of Law by Detention Prisoner: Whether a detention prisoner may practice law, and whether the prohibition on appearing as counsel is limited to a specific criminal case or applies to all cases.
• Transfer of Custody: Whether the succeeding clerk of court became Javellana's custodian upon Atty. del Rosario's appointment as judge.

• Custody of Detention Prisoner: Yes, the custody order must be recalled. The perceived threats to Javellana's life no longer exist, and he must be detained at the Provincial Jail of Antique.
• Practice of Law by Detention Prisoner: No, a detention prisoner cannot practice law. The prohibition applies to all cases, not merely to Criminal Case No. 4262, except where the detention prisoner appears in court to defend himself.
• Transfer of Custody: Yes, the succeeding clerk of court became custodian upon del Rosario's appointment as judge, as the custody was attached to the office of clerk of court in his official capacity. However, the custody order itself is now recalled.

• Custody of Detention Prisoner: When a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the law and must be placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case, unless authorized by the court to be released on bail or recognizance. The original custody order was justified by perceived threats to Javellana's life, but the Court found that these threats no longer exist. Moreover, the order was never strictly complied with, as Javellana was never actually detained at del Rosario's residence. Accordingly, the custody order was recalled and all accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355 were ordered confined at the Provincial Jail of Antique.

• Practice of Law by Detention Prisoner: All prisoners, whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence, cannot practice their profession, engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. This is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention. The trial court's order was clear that Javellana was "not to be allowed liberty to roam around but is to be held as a detention prisoner." The prohibition to practice law referred not only to Criminal Case No. 4262 but to all other cases as well, except in cases where Javellana would appear in court to defend himself.

• Transfer of Custody: The trial court gave Atty. del Rosario custody of Javellana in his official capacity as clerk of court, with the obligation to hold and detain him in his residence. When del Rosario was appointed judge, he ceased to be the personal custodian, and the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed the custodian under the same undertaking. However, since the custody order itself is now recalled, this transfer is moot.

• Disabilities Incident to Detention — All prisoners, whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence, cannot practice their profession, engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. This disability is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Javellana, as a detention prisoner, was absolutely barred from practicing law, and that the prohibition extended to all cases, not merely the one specifically identified in the July 30, 1990 resolution.

• Custody of Law Upon Arrest — When a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the law and must be placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail, unless authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. The Court relied on this principle to recall the special custody arrangement and order Javellana's confinement at the provincial jail.

• "Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. This is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the disabilities incident to detention, establishing the absolute bar on the practice of law and other professional activities by detention prisoners.

• "The prohibition to practice law referred not only to Criminal Case No. 4262, but to all other cases as well, except in cases where private respondent would appear in court to defend himself." — This clarifies the scope of the prohibition, distinguishing between appearing as counsel for others (prohibited) and appearing in one's own defense (permitted).

• Rule 113, Sections 2 and 3, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Cited for the principle that a person arrested is placed under the custody of the law and in actual restraint of liberty in jail to be bound to answer for the commission of the offense.
• Rule 114, Section 1, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Cited for the rule that a detainee must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case unless authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concurred.