The Supreme Court has clarified the extent to which an individual’s rights are curtailed when under detention, specifically addressing the instance of Avelino T. Javellana. The Court ruled that while under detention, Javellana must be confined in the Provincial Jail of Antique and is prohibited from practicing law, except in cases where he defends himself. This decision underscores the principle that detention necessarily restricts certain freedoms, including professional practice, to ensure the individual answers for the alleged offense.

Detention’s Reach: Can a Detained Lawyer Continue to Practice?

The case originated from a motion seeking clarification on the conditions of Avelino T. Javellana’s detention, who was given custody to the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose, Antique, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, due to perceived threats to his life while pending criminal cases. Despite the custody arrangement, Javellana continued to practice law, leading to questions about whether he was, in effect, an escapee or fugitive of justice. The Supreme Court’s intervention became necessary to define the boundaries of Javellana’s permissible activities during his detention.

The Court addressed the ambiguity surrounding Javellana’s detention and clarified several key points. First, it emphasized that the initial order allowing Javellana to be held in the custody of the Clerk of Court was intended to ensure his detention, not to grant him freedom of movement. The purpose was to provide a safer environment than the Antique Provincial Jail due to perceived threats. However, this order was not strictly followed, as Javellana engaged in his normal activities, including practicing law. Building on this principle, the Court clarified that with Javellana’s subsequent arrest in connection with other criminal cases, he is deemed to be under the custody of the law and should be detained in the Provincial Jail of Antique.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of Javellana’s continued practice of law. The Court stated unequivocally that as a detention prisoner, Javellana is not allowed to practice his profession. This prohibition extends beyond Criminal Case No. 4262, to all other cases, except those in which he is defending himself. The rationale behind this restriction is rooted in the principle that detention implies a restriction of liberty, which necessarily includes the ability to engage in one’s profession or business. This approach contrasts with the situation of individuals who are free on bail, who may have more latitude in their activities.

The Court then reiterated the fundamental principle of Philippine law that arrest places an individual under the custody of the law. According to the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure:

Rule 113, Sections 2 and 3 states that a person is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail to ensure their presence to answer for the commission of the offense.

The Court emphasized that detention during the pendency of a case is the norm, unless the court authorizes release on bail or recognizance. This framework ensures that the accused is available to face trial and judgment. Further, the Court made it clear that this principle applies uniformly to all prisoners, whether under preventive detention or serving a final sentence. They cannot practice their profession, engage in business or occupation, or hold office while in detention. This limitation is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention, serving to maintain order and ensure the integrity of the legal process. This legal standard applies universally, without exceptions.

As a final point, the Supreme Court ordered the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose, Antique, to expedite the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. Given that these cases have been pending for over a decade, the Court stressed the need for a prompt resolution to ensure justice is served without further delay.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a detention prisoner, specifically Avelino T. Javellana, could continue to practice law while in detention. The Supreme Court clarified that he could not, except when defending himself.
Why was Javellana initially placed under the custody of the Clerk of Court?	Javellana was initially placed under the custody of the Clerk of Court due to perceived threats to his life at the Antique Provincial Jail. The intention was to provide a safer detention environment.
What is the legal basis for prohibiting a detention prisoner from practicing law?	The legal basis is that detention implies a restriction of liberty, which necessarily includes the ability to engage in one’s profession or business. This ensures the individual is available to answer for the alleged offense.
Does the prohibition on practicing law apply to all cases?	Yes, the prohibition applies to all cases except those in which the detention prisoner is defending himself.
What happens when a person is arrested?	When a person is arrested, they are deemed placed under the custody of the law. They are placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail to ensure they answer for the commission of the offense.
Can a prisoner engage in business or hold office while detained?	No, prisoners, whether under preventive detention or serving a final sentence, cannot practice their profession, engage in any business or occupation, or hold office while in detention.
What did the Supreme Court order regarding the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355?	The Supreme Court ordered the presiding judge to expedite the trial of these cases, which had been pending for over a decade.
Where must Avelino T. Javellana be detained?	Avelino T. Javellana must be detained at the Provincial Jail of Antique, San Jose, Antique.

The Supreme Court’s resolution provides clarity on the extent of restrictions imposed on individuals under detention. The ruling reaffirms that while awaiting trial, certain rights, such as the ability to practice one’s profession, are curtailed to ensure accountability and the integrity of the legal process.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Bonifacio Sanz Maceda and Avelino T. Javellana, G.R. Nos. 89591-96, January 24, 2000