EN BANC
THE UNITED STATES,
Complainant-Appellee,
G.
R. No. 1375
April
1, 1905
-versus-
PACIFICO
GONZAGA,
Defendant-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
WILLARD, J :
The defendant in
this case
and the defendant in the case of the United States vs. Pacifico Gonzaga
1 [2 Off. Gaz., 383] is the same person, and this proceeding grows out
of an interlocutory order made by the defendant in the case there under
the discussion. The defendant, acting as municipal president, had taken
jurisdiction of a criminal proceeding against Ruperto Gimarino, a
justice
of the peace, for prevaricacion, and had issued an order of arrest on
the
7th day of July, 1903, fixing the bail of the justice of the peace in
the
sum of 2,000 Pesos. Afterwards, and on the 25th of July, 1903, the
defendant
made an order increasing the amount of the bail from 2,000 Pesos to
32,000
Pesos, and directed two policemen to arrest Gimarino. The latter was
brought
to the municipal building, and the order increasing the amount of the
bail
was read to him. He stated that he could not furnish it, and he was not
allowed by the defendant to depart from the municipal building until
about
5 o'clock in the afternoon, when the defendant made another order,
vacating
his former order increasing the amount of bail, and verbally told the
justice
of the peace that he might go. He was detained for about nine hours.
The
court below convicted the defendant in this case of a violation of
Article
200 of the Penal Code.
In view
of the fact
that in the other case against this defendant, We held that he could
not
be convicted for usurping judicial functions in taking and in for a
time
retaining jurisdiction of this case, We do not see how he could be
convicted
for making interlocutory orders in the same proceeding. Moreover, in no
event can he be convicted of a violation of said Article 200, for that
article is limited to the case of a public officer who makes an arrest
not on account of the commission of some crime but for other reasons.
In
the case before Us it appears that the justice of the peace had been
charged
with a criminal offense; that he had been arrested by reason of that
charge,
and that his subsequent detention on the 25th of July was on account of
the same offense charged against him. The case, therefore, does not
fall
under Article 200.
We held
in the former
case that the defendant apparently acted in good faith. In this case,
it
was proved that in making the order increasing the amount of the bond
he
acted in bad faith. We can not see how this fact can change the result.
The
judgment of the
court below is reversed and the defendant acquitted, with the costs of
both instances de oficio.
Arellano, C.J.,
Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur. |