THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs. EUSEBIO LOPEZ, Associate Judge of Second Division of People's

Court,

BENIGNO

S.

AQUINO

and

ANTONIO

DE

LAS

ALAS,

respondents.
1947 April 14

On August 24, 1946, a decision penned by Associate Judge

Salvador Abad Santos, dated August 15, 1946, and concurred in by
Associate Judge Jose P. Veluz, was promulgated, dismissing the case.

G.R. No. L-1243

PART 1/3

Associate Judge Lopez reserved his decision.

On September 26, 1946, Judge Lopez promulgated a separate

Facts:

concurring opinion in which, according to the petition, "not satisfied

Solicitor General Lorenzo M. Taada, as head of the Office of

with dismissing the aforementioned case on the ground raised by the

Special Prosecutors, and Prosecutors Juan R. Liwag and Pedro C.

accused therein, expressed views and conclusions of facts, not

Quinto filed, in the name of the People f the Philippines, a petition

warranted by the evidence or by the issues raised by the parties nor

praying that a writ of prohibition be issued commanding Associate

necessary to the decision of the case, justifying the aid and comfort

Judge Eusebio L Lopez, of the Second Division of the People's Court,

given to the Empire of Japan by the 'Filipino leaders' or the so-called

"to desist from further proceedings in, or further exercising his

political collaborators and holding them in effect to be patriots and

jurisdiction in the trial of, and from otherwise taking further

therefore not guilty of the crime of treason with which they stand

cognizance of criminal cases for treason against Benigno S. Aquino

charged."

(No. 3527) and against Antonio de las Alas (No. 3531), and other
treason cases of the same nature actually pending before the Second

Issue:

Division of the People's Court or in any other division where he may

hereafter be assigned, and declaring him disqualified to sit therein."

Whether or not, upon the facts alleged in the petition and

appearing in the annexes on record, Judge Eusebio M. Lopez is

On March 14, 1946, an information for treason was filed in

disqualified from sitting and participating in any manner in the

criminal case No. 3534 against Guillermo B. Francisco. The accused

hearing, consideration and decision of the treason cases against

entered his plea of not guilty and the case was heard on diverse days

Benigno S. Aquino (No. 3527), Antonio de las Alas (No. 3531), and of

in the months of June and July 346, before the Second Division of the

other criminal cases of the same -nature pending before the Second

People's Court, composed of Associate Judges Salvador Abad Santos

Division of the People's Court or in any other division where

and Jose Veluz and the respondent judge.

respondent judge may hereafter be assigned.

After the prosecution had rested its case, counsel for the
accused moved to dismiss, upon the sole ground that the overt acts
charged in the information were not testified to by two witnesses as
required by the treason law, article 114 of-the Revised Penal Code.

Held:
This legal problem depends for its solution on the existence of
(a) an applicable provision of law, or (b) an applicable provision of a

judicial rule; or (c) a recognized legal principle governing the matter

cannot be disqualified under Rule 124 or 126 or under any other legal

based on reason and justice.

provision, what relief can be afforded to the impending miscarriage of

The pertinent part of section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 682 is

as follows:

justice which will result by allowing him to continue participating in

the disposal of said treason cases? We regret that in this case we are

"No judge of the People's Court may disqualify himself or

not called upon to answer the question. If there is any legislative

be disqualified except in accordance with the provisions of

deficiency, whether due to lack of foresight of lawmakers or lack of

existing laws or where the accused in a case have intervened in

perspicacity of the Supreme Court as a rule-making body, that

any previous appointment of the judge to any position in the

deficiency is now beyond our power to correct.

government service."
The above provision is composed of two parts, one, general,

No applicable legal or reglementary provision having been

which makes applicable "the provisions of existing laws," and the

pointed out in support of the move to disqualify Judge Lopez, the next

other, specific, where the affected judge had been previously

legal problem is to find out if there is a recognized legal principle

appointed to any government position through the intervention of the

which may supply their absence.

accused.

We are confronted with the situation in which it is committed by

The last specific provision does not apply to Judge Lopez, as

all that there is an existing legal principle but it is contended that

nobody alleged that any of the accused in the treason causes in

there is no provision implementing its compliance. The court's

question had any part in the previous appointment of said judge to

determination

any position in the government service. What remains to be

responsibility of applying the statute, on the excuse that its

determined are what "provisions of existing laws" are referred to in the

application is uncertain and indefinite. We must face with courage

above-quoted provision.

this difficult task, and determine to our best the intention of the

is

demanded,

and

we

cannot

shirk

from

our

There is no question that the stated provisions are not

framers of this legal provision. We might at least justify the expense of

applicable in the case of Judge Lopez. Counsel for the petitioner

time and money in the preparation and promulgation of the Rules of

themselves never pretended that the case of Judge Lopez falls under

Court.

any of the two above sections of Rule 126.

Assuming

hypothetically

that,

In view of the foregoing, the petition should be granted d the

by

his

several

opinions

mentioned in the petition, Judge Lopez has shown that he cannot

administer justice impartially in the treason cases in question, if he

writ of prohibition issued against Eusebio Lopez, Judge of the People's

Court.