UP Law F2021 People v.

Sola
Criminal Procedure Rule 110, Sec 10 and 15; 1981 Fernando
Consti Art. VIII Sec 5 (4)

SUMMARY

A motion was filed to change the venue of trial on the case involving Sola and his co-accused. The witnesses
in the case fear for their lives since Kabankalan, the venue, was near Himamaylan, an area where the
defendants Sola, et al exercised considerable influence. On a separate and earlier resolution, a transfer of
venue from Kabankalan to Bacolod City was granted, rendering the present motion moot and academic
insofar as request to transfer venue is concerned.

FACTS

 Seven separate murder charges were filed at the municipal court of Kabankalan against Sola and his
co-accused;
 An arrest order was issued, but the defendants Sola and his companions were able to post bail which
the Court granted but it was averred the prosecution was not given the opportunity to prove that the
evidence of guilt of the accused is strong;
 Meanwhile, the witnesses in the murder cases informed the prosecution of their fears that if trial is
held at the Court of First Instance branch in Himamaylan, 10 km. from Kabankalan, their safety could
be jeopardized;
 The Supreme Court, on a resolution the following day (March 15) granted the motion to transfer
venue to Branch V of the CFI of Negros Occidental at Bacolod City, considering that District Judge CFI,
Negros Occidental, Branch VI at Himamaylan has an approved leave of absence for the period
January 12 to March 12, 1981 due to a mild attack of cerebral thrombosis, thus rendering the motion
for change in venue moot and academic (this is another resolution issued on March 17);
 The issue of bail was what was decided in this resolution but did not include in this digest since out-
of-topic.

RATIO

W/N the Supreme Court has power to change the venue of a trial
Yes. The constitution is quite explicit. The Supreme Court could order "a change of venue or place of trial to
avoid a miscarriage of justice." Change of venue is imperative. Thus: "The exercise by this Honorable Court
of its above constitutional power in this case will be appropriate. The witnesses in the case are fearful for
their lives. They are afraid they would be killed on their way to or from Himamaylan during any of the days
of trial. Because of this fear, they may either refuse to testify or testify falsely to save their lives.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the assailed order of Judge Rafael Gasataya granting bail to private respondents is nullified,
set aside, and declared to be without force and effect. Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio of the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental, to whose sala the cases had been transferred by virtue of the resolution of
this Court of March 5, 1981, is directed forthwith to hear the petitions for bail of private respondents, with
the prosecution being duly heard on the question of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the
respondents is strong. This decision is immediately executory. No costs.