Berbari v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a criminal case where the petitioner, Calixto Berbari, sought the appointment of assessors to sit in his trial. The petitioner alleged that the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila failed to appoint assessors as required by law, despite a request being made. 2. Procedural History: The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of prohibition and mandamus, seeking to compel the respondent judge to appoint assessors in his criminal trial. The respondents admitted the facts alleged in the petition but offered explanations, presenting the issue as one of law regarding the mandatory nature of appointing assessors upon request. 3. The Petition: The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent judge from proceeding with the trial without appointing assessors, and a writ of mandamus to compel the appointment. The core of the petition argued that sections 154 of Act No. 190 and 2477 of Act No. 2711 mandated the appointment of assessors when requested by a party, and that the judge had no discretion to deny such a request. The petitioner contended that the request was timely and not made for purposes of delay, despite prior adjournments.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 154 of Act No. 190, in relation to Section 2477 of Act No. 2711, mandates the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila to appoint assessors in a criminal case upon request. Whether the judge has discretion to deny such a request. Whether the request for assessors was made in time and not purely for the purpose of delaying the trial.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, ordering the respondent judge to appoint assessors. The Court declared that the provisions of Section 154 of Act No. 190, in relation to Section 2477 of Act No. 2711, are mandatory, and when a proper demand is made, parties have the right to select assessors from a completed list unless they otherwise agree. No findings as to costs were made.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Section 154 of Act No. 190, in conjunction with Section 2477 of Act No. 2711, mandates the appointment of assessors upon a written application by either party. The statute explicitly states that "the judge shall direct that assessors be provided," indicating a mandatory duty rather than a discretionary power. This provision was interpreted to mean that the judge must appoint assessors when properly requested, as the legislature intended the word "shall" to be imperative. The Court found that these sections provide a form of jury trial for defendants in civil and criminal cases in Manila when demanded. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the judge has no discretion to deny a request for the appointment of assessors if it is made in accordance with the law. The use of the word "shall" in Section 154 of Act No. 190 leaves no room for judicial discretion in appointing assessors once a proper application is filed. The necessity or advisability of having assessors is left to the discretion of the parties, but once they exercise this right through a proper request, the judge is bound to comply. The Court distinguished this from situations where the request is clearly and manifestly made for the purpose of delay. On Issue 3: Regarding the timeliness and purpose of the request, the Court found that the request was made opportunely. While Section 154 does not specify a time limit, the request must be made before the trial begins, otherwise, it is deemed waived. The Court noted that the adjournments granted prior to the request did not negate the petitioner's right, as he might have been forced to trial without assessors had those requests been denied. The request was made the day before the trial was set, which the Court considered timely, and any delay was attributed to the court's own lack of prompt action rather than the petitioner's fault. The argument that the petitioner should have selected from a defective list was also dismissed as without merit, as the law requires selection from a completed list.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that Section 154 of Act No. 190, read in conjunction with Section 2477 of Act No. 2711, imposes a mandatory duty upon the judge to appoint assessors when a written application is filed by either party. The use of the word "shall" in the statute indicates that the judge has no discretion to deny such a request, provided it is made in a timely manner and not for the sole purpose of delaying the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the right to assessors is a statutory right that must be respected when properly invoked, and the selection must be from a completed list unless parties agree otherwise.