Morales v. Ramos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Armando Morales and five others were charged with kidnapping with ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV, Quezon City. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of assessors, citing Section 40 of Republic Act No. 537 (Revised Charter of Quezon City) and Rule 32 of the Revised Rules of Court. The respondent Judge denied the motion, holding that the statutory intent was not for assessors in criminal cases and that the provision was directory, not mandatory. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed an original action for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to nullify the denial order and compel the respondent Judge to recognize his right to be tried with the aid of assessors, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for trial with the aid of assessors. Whether the petition has become moot and academic.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the right to assessors: The Court noted that the petition was filed to nullify an order denying the petitioner's right to be tried with the aid of assessors. The respondent Judge denied the motion, citing that the statutory intent was not for assessors in criminal cases and that the provision was directory. The petitioner contended this constituted grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of mootness: The Court took judicial notice of a manifestation filed by the respondents stating that a decision in Criminal Case No. Q-6257 was rendered on August 27, 1965. In this decision, the petitioner Armando Morales was found guilty of the crime charged and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. This decision had become final and executory as no appeal was filed by the petitioner within the reglementary period. Consequently, the Court held that the present petition had become moot and academic because the main case, where the right to assessors was sought, had already been decided and the judgment had attained finality. The inaction of the petitioner in appealing the criminal case was deemed to indicate conformity with the sentence rendered therein, rendering the issue of assessors irrelevant.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to nullify an order denying the right to trial with assessors becomes moot and academic when the petitioner has already been convicted and the decision has become final and executory.