Jandayan v. Ruiz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Dulcisimo Tongco Jandayan was convicted of Serious Physical Injuries through Reckless Imprudence by the Municipal Court of Loay, Bohol, and sentenced to three (3) months of Arresto Mayor. This conviction stemmed from a criminal case initiated by Candelaria Arana. 2. Procedural History: Following his conviction, the case was appealed and raffled to the Court of First Instance of Bohol, Branch 1, presided over by Judge Paulino Marquez. An order was issued for the promulgation of the decision on July 6, 1973. However, Judge Marquez retired on June 27, 1973. Despite the retirement, respondent Judge Fernando S. Ruiz, Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bohol, promulgated the decision dated June 22, 1973, signed by the retired Judge Marquez, on July 16, 1973. Petitioner was confined in the Bohol provincial jail on the same date. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a pleading labeled as a petition for habeas corpus, certiorari, and mandamus, arguing that the promulgation of the decision by respondent Judge Ruiz was null and void because it was done after the retirement of the judge who prepared and signed it. The Solicitor General concurred with the petitioner, asserting that the promulgation was invalid based on settled rulings. The petition was ultimately dismissed as moot and academic because the petitioner had already served his sentence and was released from confinement prior to the Court's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the promulgation of a decision by a judge who has retired from service is valid. Whether the petition for habeas corpus, certiorari, and mandamus is moot and academic.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic, petitioner having been released in the meanwhile. However, the Court reiterated its adherence to the well-settled doctrine that a promulgation of a sentence by a judge who has retired is null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the promulgation of a decision by a retired judge: The Court held that the promulgation of the sentence by respondent Judge Fernando S. Ruiz on July 16, 1973, based on a decision dated June 22, 1973, signed by Judge Paulino Marquez who retired on June 27, 1973, is null and void. This is in accordance with authoritative doctrine that a judge who has retired from service is no longer competent to discharge the functions of his office, and any decision promulgated after his retirement has no binding effect. The Court cited established jurisprudence, including Lino Luna v. Rodriguez, People v. Court of Appeals, Jimenez v. Republic, and Vera v. People, which consistently hold that decisions prepared and signed by a judge before retirement but promulgated after retirement are void. The Court found no justification for the respondent judge's action in the face of this compelling juristic norm. On whether the petition is moot and academic: The Court noted that the habeas corpus aspect of the petition was rendered moot and academic because the petitioner had already served the rest of his sentence and was released from the municipal jail of Anda, Bohol, on October 5, 1973. The respondent Chief of Police of Anda, Bohol, stated in his comment that he only became aware of the petition after the petitioner had already fully served his sentence. Despite the mootness, the Court deemed it necessary to hand down this opinion to remove any doubt regarding its adherence to the well-settled doctrine on the matter at issue.
Main Doctrine
A promulgation of a sentence by a judge who has retired from service is null and void and without binding effect.