Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-12871 July 25, 1959

TIMOTEO V. CRUZ, petitioner, vs.FRNCISCO G. !.SLV, respondent.

Baizas and Balderrama for petitioner.City AttorneyFrancisco G. H. Salva in his own behalf.

MONTEM"OR, J .#

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition withpreliminar in!unction filed b Timoteo ". Cru# a$ainst%rancisco &. '. (alva, in his capacit as Cit %iscal of Pasa Cit, to restrain him from continuin$ with thepreliminar investi$ation he was conductin$ in(eptember, )*+ in connection with the -illin$ of Manuel Monro which too- place on une )+, )*+/ inPasa Cit. To better understand the present case andits implications, the followin$ facts $athered from thepleadin$s and the memoranda filed b the parties, mabe stated.

%ollowin$ the -illin$ of Manuel Monro in )*+/ anumber of persons were accused as involved andimplicated in said crime. After a lon$ trial, the Court of %irst 0nstance of Pasa Cit found 1scar Castelo, osede esus, 'ipolito Bonifacio, Bienvenido Mendo#a,%rancis Berdu$o and others $uilt of the crime of murder and sentenced them to death. The allappealed the sentence althou$h without said appeal, inview of the imposition of the e2treme penalt, the casewould have to be reviewed automaticall b this Court.1scar Castelo sou$ht a new trial which was $rantedand upon retrial, he was a$ain found $uilt and hisformer conviction of sentence was affirmed andreiterated b the same trial court.

0t seems that pendin$ appeal, the late PresidentMa$sasa ordered a reinvesti$ation of the case. Thepurpose of said reinvesti$ation does not appear in therecord. Anwa, intelli$ence a$ents of the PhilippineConstabular and investi$ators of Malaca3an$conducted the investi$ation for the Chief E2ecutive,4uestioned a number of people and obtained whatwould appear to be confession, pointin$ to persons,other than those convicted and sentenced b the trialcourt, as the real -illers of Manuel Monro.

Counsel for 1scar Castelo and his co5defendants wroteto respondent %iscal (alva to conduct a reinvesti$ationof the case presumabl on the basis of the affidavitsand confessions obtained b those who hadinvesti$ated the case at the instance of Malaca3an$.%iscal (alva conferred with the (olicitor &eneral as towhat steps he should ta-e. A conference was held withthe (ecretar of ustice who decided to have theresults of the investi$ation b the PhilippineConstabular and Malaca3an$ investi$ators madeavailable to counsel for the appellants.

Ta-in$ advanta$e of this opportunit, counsel for the

appellants filed a motion for new trial with this Tribunalsupportin$ the same with the so5called affidavits andconfessions of some of those persons investi$ated,such as the confessions of (er$io Eduardo de&u#man, 1scar Camo, Pablo Canlas, and writtenstatements of several others. B resolution of thisTribunal, action on said motion for new trial wasdeferred until the case was studied and determined onthe merits. 0n the meantime, the Chief, PhilippineConstabular, head sent to the 1ffice of %iscal (alvacopies of the same affidavits and confessions andwritten statements, of which the motion for new trialwas based, and respondent (alva proceeded toconduct a reinvesti$ation desi$natin$ for said purposesa committee of three composed of himself as chairmanand Assistant Cit Attornes 'erminio A. Avenda3io andErnesto A. Bernabe.

0n connection with said preliminar investi$ation bein$conducted b the committee, petitioner Timoteo Cru#was subpoenaed b respondent to appear at his officeon (eptember 6), )*+, to testif 7upon oath before mein a certain criminal investi$ation to be conducted at thetime and place b this office a$ainst ou and (er$ioEduardo, et al., for murder.7 1n (eptember )*, )*+,petitioner Timoteo Cru# wrote to respondent (alvaas-in$ for the transfer of the preliminar investi$ationfrom (eptember 6), due to the fact that this counsel, Att. Crispin Bai#as, would attend a hearin$ on thatsame da in Na$a Cit. Actin$ upon said re4uest for postponement, %iscal (alva set the preliminarinvesti$ation on (eptember 68. 1n that da, Att.Bai#as appeared for petitioner Cru#, 4uestioned the !urisdiction of the committee, particularl respondent(alva, to conduct the preliminar investi$ation in viewof the fact that the same case involvin$ the -illin$ of Manuel Monro was pendin$ appeal in this Court, andon the same da filed the present petition for certiorariand prohibition. This Tribunal $ave due course to thepetition for certiorari and prohibition and upon the filin$of a cash bond of P699.99 issued a writ of preliminarin!unction thereb stoppin$ the preliminar investi$ationbein$ conducted b respondent (alva.

The connection, if an, that petitioner Cru# had with thepreliminar investi$ation bein$ conducted brespondent (alva and his committee was that affidavitsand confessions sent to (alva b the Chief, PhilippineConstabular, and which were bein$ investi$ated,implicated petitioner Cru#, even picturin$ him as theinsti$ator and mastermind in the -illin$ of ManuelMonro.

The position ta-en b petitioner Cru# in this case is thatinasmuch as the principal case of People vs. Oscar Castelo et al ., &.R. No. :5)9*8, is pendin$ appealand consideration before us, no court, much less aprosecutin$ attorne li-e respondent (alva, had anri$ht or authorit to conduct a preliminar investi$ationor reinvesti$ation of the case for that would beobstructin$ the administration of !ustice and interferrin$with the consideration on appeal of the main casewherein appellants had been found $uilt and convictedand sentenced; neither had respondent authorit to citehim to appear and testif at said investi$ation.

Respondent (alva, however, contends that if hesubpoenaed petitioner Cru# at all, it was because of the

 

latter<s oral and personal re4uest to allow him to appear at the investi$ation with his witnesses for his ownprotection, possibl, to controvert and rebut anevidence therein presented a$ainst him. (alva claimsthat were it not for this re4uest and if, on the contrar,Timoteo Cru# had e2pressed an ob!ection to bein$cited to appear in the investi$ation he =(alva> wouldnever have subpoenaed him.

 Althou$h petitioner Cru# now stoutl denies havin$made such re4uest that he be allowed to appear at theinvesti$ation, we are inclined to a$ree with %iscal (alvathat such a re4uest had been made. 0nasmuch as he,Timoteo Cru#, was deepl implicated in the -illin$ of Manuel Monro b the affidavits and confessions of several persons who were bein$ investi$ated b (alvaand his committee, it was but natural that petitioner should have been interested, even desirous of bein$present at that investi$ation so that he could face andcross e2amine said witnesses and affiants when thetestified in connection with their affidavits or confessions, either repudiatin$, modifin$ or ratifin$the same. Moreover, in the communication, addressedto respondent (alva as-in$ that the investi$ation,scheduled for (eptember 6), )*+, be postponedbecause his attorne would be unable to attend,Timoteo Cru# e2pressed no opposition to thesubpoena, not even a hint that he was ob!ectin$ to hisbein$ cited to appear at the investi$ation.

 As to the ri$ht of respondent (alva to conduct thepreliminar investi$ation which he and his committeebe$an ordinaril, when a criminal case in which a fiscalintervened thou$h nominall, for accordin$ torespondent, two $overnment attornes had beendesi$ned b the (ecretar of ustice to handle theprosecution in the trial of the case in the court below, istried and decided and it is appealed to a hi$her courtsuch as this Tribunal, the functions and actuations of said fiscal have terminated; usuall, the appeal ishandled for the $overnment b the 1ffice of the (olicitor &eneral. Conse4uentl, there would be no reason or occasion for said fiscal to conduct a reinvesti$ation todetermine criminal responsibilit for the crime involvedin the appeal.

'owever, in the present case, respondent has, in our opinion, established a !ustification for his reinvesti$ationbecause accordin$ to him, in the ori$inal criminal casea$ainst Castelo, et al., one of the defendants named(alvador Realista de &u#man was not included for the reason that he was arrested and was placed withinthe !urisdiction of the trial court onl after the triala$ainst the other accused had commenced, even after the prosecution had rested its case and the defensehad be$un to present its evidence. Naturall, Realistaremained to stand trial. The trial court, accordin$ torespondent, at the instance of Realista, had scheduledthe hearin$ at an earl date, that is in Au$ust, )*+.Respondent claims that before he would $o to trial inthe prosecution of Realista he had to chart his courseand plan of action, whether to present the sameevidence, oral and documentar, presented in theori$inal case and trial, or, in view of the new evidenceconsistin$ of the affidavits and confessions sent to himb the Philippine Constabular, he should first assessand determine the value of said evidence b conductin$an investi$ation and that should he be convinced that

the persons criminall responsible for the -illin$ of Manuel Monro were other than those alread tried andconvicted, li-e 1scar Castelo and his co5accused andco5appellants, includin$ (alvador Realista, then hemi$ht act accordin$l and even recommend thedismissal of the case a$ainst Realista.

0n this, we are inclined to a$ree with respondent (alva.%or, as contended b him and as su$$ested bauthorities, the dut and role of prosecutin$ attorne isnot onl to prosecute and secure the conviction of the$uilt but also to protect the innocent.

?e cannot overemphasi#e the necessit of closescrutin and investi$ation of the prosecutin$ officers of all cases handled b them, but whilst this court isaverse to an form of vacillation b such officers in theprosecution of public offenses, it is un4uestionable thatthe ma, in appropriate cases, in order to do !usticeand avoid in!ustice, reinvesti!ate cases  in which thehave alread filed the correspondin$ informations. 0nthe lan$ua$e of ustice (utherland of the (upremeCourt of the @nited (tates, the  prosec"tin! officer 7isthe representative not of an ordinar part to acontrovers, but of a soverei$nt whose obli$ation to$overn impartiall is as compellin$ as its obli$ation to$overn at all; and whose interest, therefore, in acriminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, butthat !ustice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and ver definite sense the servant of the law, thetwofold aim of which is that !"ilt shall not escape nor innocent s"ffer . 'e ma prosecute with earnestnessand vi$or indeed, he should do so. But, while he mastri-e had blows, he is not at libert to stri-e foul ones.0t is as much his dut to refrain from improper methodscalculated to produce a wron$ful conviction as it is touse ever le$itimate means to brin$ about a !ust one.=* @nited (tates law Review, une, )*/+, No. , p./9*, cited in the case of (uare# vs. Platon, * Phil.,++>

?ith respect to the ri$ht of respondent (alva to citepetitioner to appear and testif before him at thescheduled preliminar investi$ation, under the law,petitioner had a ri$ht to be present at that investi$ationsince as was alread stated, he was more or lessdeepl involved and implicated in the -illin$ of Monroaccordin$ to the affiants whose confessions, affidavitsand testimonies respondent (alva was considerin$ or was to consider at said preliminar investi$ation. But heneed not be present at said investi$ation because hispresence there implies, and was more of a ri$ht rather than a dut or le$al obli$ation. Conse4uentl, even if, asclaimed b respondent (alva, petitioner e2pressed thedesire to be $iven an opportunit to be present at thesaid investi$ation, if he latter chan$ed his mind andrenounced his ri$ht, and even strenuousl ob!ected tobein$ made to appear at said investi$ation, he couldnot be compelled to do so.

Now we come to the manner in which said investi$ationwas conducted b the respondent. 0f, as contended bhim, the purpose of said investi$ation was onl toac4uaint himself with and evaluate the evidenceinvolved in the affidavits and confessions of (er$ioEduardo, Cosme Camo and others b 4uestionin$them, then he, respondent, could well have conductedthe investi$ation in his office, 4uietl, unobtrusivel and

 

without much fanfare, much less publicit.

'owever, accordin$ to the petitioner and not denied bthe respondent, the investi$ation was conducted not inrespondent<s office but in the session hall of theMunicipal Court of Pasa Cit evidentl, toaccommodate the bi$ crowd that wanted to witness theproceedin$, includin$ members of the press. A number of microphones were installed. Reporters wereeverwhere and photo$raphers were bus ta-in$pictures. 0n other words, apparentl with the permissionof, if not the encoura$ement b the respondent, newsphoto$raphers and newsmen had a filed da. Not onlthis, but in the course of the investi$ation, as shown bthe transcript of the steno$raphic notes ta-en durin$said investi$ation, on two occasions, the first, after 1scar Camo had concluded his testimon respondent(alva, addressin$ the newspapermen said, 7&entlemenof the press, if ou want to as- 4uestions 0 am willin$ tolet ou do so and the 4uestion as-ed will be reproducedas m own7; and the second, after ose Maratella de&u#man had finished testifin$ and respondent (alva,addressin$ the newsmen, a$ain said, 7&entlemen of the press is free to as- 4uestions as ours.7 ?hrespondent was willin$ to abdicate and renounce hisri$ht and prero$ative to ma-e and address the4uestions to the witnesses under investi$ation, in favor of the members of the press, is difficult for us tounderstand, unless he, respondent, wanted to currfavor with the press and publici#e his investi$ation asmuch as possible. %ortunatel, the $entlemen of thepress to whom he accorded such unusual privile$e andfavor appeared to have wisel and prudentl declinedthe offer and did not as- 4uestions, this accordin$ to thetranscript now before us.

But, the newspapers certainl plaed up and $ave widepublicit to what too- place durin$ the investi$ation, andthis involved headlines and e2tensive recitals,narrations of and comments on the testimonies $ivenb the witnesses as well as vivid descriptions of theincidents that too- place durin$ the investi$ation. 0tseemed as thou$h the criminal responsibilit for the-illin$ of Manuel Monro which had alread been triedand finall determined b the lower court and whichwas under appeal and advisement b this Tribunal, wasbein$ retried and redetermined in the press, and all withthe apparent place and complaisance of respondent.

%ran-l, the members of this Court were $reatldisturbed and annoed b such publicit andsensationalism, all of which ma properl be laid at thedoor of respondent (alva. 0n this, he committed whatwas re$ard a $rievous error and poor !ud$ment for which we fail to find an e2cuse or satisfactore2planation. 'is actuations in this re$ard went wellbeond the bounds of prudence, discretion and $oodtaste. 0t is bad enou$h to have such undue publicitwhen a criminal case is bein$ investi$ated b theauthorities, even when it bein$ tried in court; but whensaid publicit and sensationalism is allowed, evenencoura$ed, when the case is on appeal and is pendin$consideration b this Tribunal, the whole thin$ becomesine2cusable, even abhorrent, and this Court, in theinterest of !ustice, is constrained and called upon to putan end to it and a deterrent a$ainst its repetition bmetin$ an appropriate disciplinar measure, even apenalt to the one liable.

(ome of the members of the Court who appeared tofeel more stron$l than the others favored theimposition of a more or less severe penal sanction. After mature deliberation, we have finall a$reed that apublic censure would, for the present, be sufficient.

0n conclusion, we find and hold that respondent (alvawas warranted in holdin$ the preliminar investi$ationinvolved in this case, insofar as (alvador Realista isconcerned, for which reason the writ of preliminarin!unction issued stoppin$ said preliminarinvesti$ation, is dissolved; that in view of petitioner<sob!ection to appear and testif at the said investi$ation,respondent ma not compel him to attend saidinvesti$ation, for which reason, the subpoena issued brespondent a$ainst petitioner is hereb set aside.

0n view of the fore$oin$, the petition for certiorari andprohibition is $ranted in part and denied in part.Considerin$ the conclusion arrived at b us, respondent%rancisco &. '. (alva is hereb publicl reprehendedand censured for the uncalled for and wide publicit andsensationalism that he had $iven to and allowed inconnection with his investi$ation, which we considerand find to be contempt of court; and, furthermore, he iswarned that a repetition of the same would meet with amore severe disciplinar action and penalt. No costs.