ManilaEN BANC
IN
THE MATTER OF
THE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST MARCELINO
AGUAS FOR CONTEMPT
OF THE COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA.chanrobles virtual law library
G.
R.
No. 12
August
8, 1901
D E C I S I
O N
SMITH, J:
It appears from the record
in this matter that on the 29th of August 1900, during the progress of
a trial then being held before the Court of First Instance at Bacolor,
in the Province of Pampanga, the Court had occasion to caution Angel
Alberto,
a witness in the case, not to look at the attorney for the defendant
but
to fix his attention on the judge who was at the time examining him. It
seems that the witness did not give heed to this warning, and the judge
thereupon arose from his seat and approaching the witness, seized him
by
the shoulders, and using the expression, "Lingon ang mucha"
("Look
at me"), either shook him, as insisted by the attorney for the
defendant,
or only turned him about, as claimed by the judge and others. Whether
the
witness was shaken or only turned about, at all events "seizing him,"
brought
the defendant's attorney to his feet, who, protesting against the
action
of the judge as coercive of the witness, demanded that a record be made
of the occurrence and that the further hearing of the case be
postponed.
Two days afterward the clerk entered in his record a recital of the
incident
substantially as above, and also a statement that on other and prior
occasions
the attorney, Marcelino Aguas, had been wanting in respect to the court
by making use of "improper phrases," and by interrupting opposing
counsel
in their examination of witnesses. The court on this record adjudged
the
attorney to be in contempt of court and suspended him from the practice
of his profession for a period of twenty days. The attorney appealed,
but
his appeal having been disallowed by the lower court, he asked to be
heard
in justification, which was granted.
On the hearing in
justification
evidence was taken touching the contempt alleged to have been committed
by Señor Aguas, from which the court found that during the trial
of the case of Roberto Toledo vs. Valeriano Balatbat, the judge, having
had occasion to seize the witness, Alberto Angel, by the shoulders to
turn
him around, Señor Aguas, attorney for defendant, had risen from
his seat in a "menacing attitude," and "with a voice and body
trembling"
protested that the action of the judge was coercive of the witness; and
further that his attention being called to the fact that he was wanting
in respect to the court and that he should sit down, he waived his
right
to go on with the trial and moved a postponement of the hearing. On
this
finding the court again adjudged the attorney guilty of contempt of
court,
and suspended him from the practice of his profession for a period of
twenty
days. From this judgment Señor Aguas appealed to this court.
In Our opinion the
action of the judge in seizing the witness, Alberto Angel, by the
shoulder
and turning him about was unwarranted and an interference with that
freedom
from unlawful personal violence to which every witness is entitled
while
giving testimony in a court of justice. Against such conduct the
appellant
had the right to protest and to demand that the incident be made a
matter
of record. That he did so was not contempt, providing protest and
demand
were respectfully made and with due regard for the dignity of the
court.
The only question, therefore in this case is, was the appellant
respectful
and regardful of the court's dignity in presenting his objection and
asking
that it be recorded in the proceedings? The witnesses say and the judge
finds that "his attitude was menacing" [bastante amenazadora]
in
the moment of making his protest, but beyond that there is nothing in
the
record which even tends to show that he was disrespectful to the court
or unmindful of its dignity. In our opinion both testimony and finding
state a mere conclusion which, in the absence of the facts from which
it
was deduced, is wholly valueless to support a judgment of contempt. The
statement that the attorney's attitude was "menacing" tended no more to
competently establish the alleged offense of contempt than if the
witnesses
had testified and the court had found that his conduct was
"contemptuous
or lacking in respect." The specific act from which it was inferred
that
his attitude was menacing should have been testified to by the
witnesses
and found by the court, and failing that, the record does not show
concrete
facts sufficient to justify the conclusion that he was disrespectful to
the court or offensive to its dignity.
The judgment appealed
from must, therefore, be reversed, and it is so ordered, with costs de
oficio.
Arellano, C.J.,
Cooper, Willard, Torres and Ladd, J.J., concur.
Mapa, J., did not sit
in this case. |