The Supreme Court has ordered a change of venue for the criminal cases filed against Pastor Apollo Quiboloy from Davao City to Quezon City.

The SC Second Division said it ordered the change of venue pursuant to its constitutional power in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla requested the transfer of Quiboloy’s cases for trafficking and the SC found compelling reasons to justify the transfer.

The court said the cases involve public interest and with the accused being a well-known religious leader and influential in Davao, the witnesses cannot be expected to testify freely.

The SC ordered Davao City Regional Trial Court Branch 12 to forward the entire records of Criminal Case R-DVO24-01439-CR and R-DVO-24-01440-CR to the Office of the Executive Judge of the RTC, Quezon City within three days from notice.

Also, the SC directed the Quezon City RTC executive judge to raffle off the cases upon receipt of the case records among the judges at the station, who shall decide the cases with utmost dispatch.

It further directed the judges in Davao City and in other stations in Mindanao where future related cases involving Quiboloy and his co-accused may be filed to motu proprio order the transmittal of the records to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC, Quezon City and Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City, as the case may be.

Remulla, in a letter dated 4 April, requested the transfer of venue of the cases, “considering that the significance of the subject cases extends beyond the local context, touching on broader national policies, public interest, and security concerns; and the preservation of integrity of the proceedings as there is a likelihood of local biases potentially affecting the trial’s impartiality in Davao City, and pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5 (4) of the 1987 Constitution which provides that the Court has the power to order a change of venue or place of trial to forestall a miscarriage of justice where there are serious and weighty reasons present which would prevent the court of original jurisdiction from conducting a fair and impartial trial.”