G.R. No.

L-42428

March 18, 1983

BERNARDINO MARCELINO
Petitioner,
-vsTHE HON. FERNANDO CRUZ, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch XII of the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and
THE PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL OF RIZAL,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

FACTS:
1. Petitioner was charged with rape before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch XII,
and his case was conducted and concluded on August 04, 1975.
2. On the same date, counsels for the accused (petitioner) and complainant People of the
Philippines in the rape case filed before the CFI of Rizal, moved for time within which to
submit their respective memoranda.
3. Trial court granted both counsels motion and gave them thirty (30) days to submit their
memoranda. (30 days from August 04, 1975 concludes on September 03, 1975)
4. Petitioner, through counsel, filed his memorandum in due time, but no memorandum was
filed by the People.
5. On November 28, 1975, respondent judge filed with the Deputy Clerk of Court his decision
in said for promulgation. The decision was also dated November 28, 1975.
6. On the date set for promulgation of the decision, counsel for the accused moved for
postponement, citing the loss of jurisdiction of the trial court for failure to decide the case
within 90 days from submission thereof of decision, respondent judge granted the counsels
request and reset the promulgation to January 19, 1976.
7. On January 19, 1976, counsel for the accused moved anew for the resetting of the
promulgation of the decision, and respondent judge granted the same and moved anew the
promulgation on January 26, 1976.
8. On January 12, 1976, counsel for the accused filed before the Supreme Court this petition
(Petition for prohibition and writ of habeas corpus to enjoin respondent judge from
promulgating his decision above mentioned). Supreme Court issued an Order temporarily
restraining respondent judge from promulgating said decision.

9. Petitioner avers that the three-month period prescribed by Section 11 of Article x of the
1973 Constitution, being a constitutional directive, is mandatory in character and that nonobservance thereof results in the loss of jurisdiction of the court over the unresolved case.

*Section 11, Article X of the 1973 Constitution states that:

Upon the effectivity of this Constitution, the maximum period within which a case or matter
shall be decided or resolved from the date of its submission, shall be eighteen months for the Supreme
court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all inferior collegiate courts, and
three months for all other inferior courts.

ISSUES:
1. WHETHER OR NOT respondent judge failed to comply with the provisions of Section II,
Article X of the 1973 Constitution, in filing the decision within the given period of three (3)
months, equivalent to ninety (90) days.
2. WHETHER OR NOT Section II, Article X of the 1973 Constitution is mandatory in character or
merely directory.
3. WHETHER OR NOT jurisdiction of the court over the unresolved criminal case was lost due
to non-compliance by respondent judge with the above mentioned provision.

RULING:
1. On November 28, 1973, or eighty five (85) days from September 4, 1975, the date the case
was deemed submitted for decision, respondent judge filed with the deputy clerk of court
the decision in the above mentioned criminal case. Thus, respondent judge was able to
render his decision within the three-month period prescribed by the Constitution.
2. The established rule is that constitutional provisions are to be construed as mandatory,
UNLESS by express provision or by necessary implication, a different intention is manifest.
Supreme Court believed that the above mentioned provision falls within the exception
rather than the general rule, citing the case of Albemarel Oil & Gase Co. v. Morris, which
declares that constitutional provisions are directory, and not mandatory, where they refer
to matters merely PROCEDURAL.
3. Exceeded or not, a decision rendered by an inferior court outside of the 90-day period is
not void for loss of jurisdiction. To hold that non-compliance by the courts with the
aforesaid provision would result in loss of jurisdiction, would make the courts, through

which conflicts are resolved, the very instruments to foster unresolved cases by reason
merely of having failed to render a decision within the allotted term.
4. The petition was DISMISSED and the Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court is lifted
however, since respondent judge is already deceased, his successor is ordered to decide the
Criminal Case on the basis of the record thereof within 90 days from the time the case is
raffled to him.