EN
BANC
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
G.
R.
Nos. L-1 & L-2
December
4, 1945
-versus-
JUAN
NAVARRO AND
ANACLETO ATIENZA,
Defendants-Appellees.
D
E C I S I
O N
BENGZON,
J :
On April 27, 1945, Juan
Navarro and Anacleto Atienza, Acting Provincial Governor and Provincial
Warden, respectively, of the Province of Mindoro, were charged with the
arbitrary detention of Esteban P. Beloncio [in Criminal Case No. 32]
and
of Juan G. Beloncio II [in Criminal Case No. 33]. Typical was the first
Information alleging:
"That from January
27, 1945, and for several days thereafter, in the Municipality of
Calapan,
Province of Mindoro, Commonwealth of the Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, said defendants Juan Navarro and Anacleto
Atienza,
Acting Provincial Governor and Provincial Warden, respectively, both
being
public officials to whom the custody and responsibility of prisoners
were
entrusted for proper action, without any lawful or justifiable cause
and
without legal grounds therefor, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously detain Esteban P. Beloncio in the Provincial Jail of
Mindoro
which continued for more than fifteen days but less than six months."
On April 28, 1945, the
Judge of the Court of First Instance called the cases for trial. The
record
is not completely clear as to what transpired therein. It is apparent
that
a pre-trial was held, the Judge asking the parties or their attorneys
some
questions, which the latter answered, with the result that admissions
were
made to the effect that Esteban P. Beloncio and Juan G. Beloncio II had
been detained for several days after January 27, 1945, in the
provincial
jail of Mindoro by order of the Commanding General, Western Visayan
Task
Force, United States Army. Whereupon, defendants' counsel lost no time
in filing a motion to quash, upon the ground that the facts charged did
not constitute a criminal offense. Ruling upon the motion, the
Honorable
M. L. de la Rosa, Judge, dismissed the two cases, explaining in part:
"Argumentando
ambas
partes, la defensa en favor de su mocion de sobreseimiento, de esta
fecha,
y la acusacion, oponiendose a la misma, conveinen en que los referidos
Esteban P. Beloncio y Juan G. Beloncio II fueron detenidos y puestos en
la carcel, como presos, por las autoridades militares de las fuerzas
Americanas,
despues de la reconquista de esta parte norte de Mindoro, que tuvo
lugar
hacia la segunda mitad de enero ultimo, las cuales autoridades fueron
tambien
quienes mas tarde nombraron a Juan Navarro, como Gobernador Provincial
de esta provincia, puesto que hasta ahora la ocupa, porque aun no se ha
nombrado, por los funcionarios del Commonwealth de Filipinas, su
sucesor,
y fue instruido a continuar ejerciendo su cargo."
The Provincial Fiscal appealed.
The Solicitor General
argues that "if the Informations must be quashed on the ground 'that
the
facts charged do not constitute an offense' elementary logic dictates
that
the facts charged 'in the informations' must be the one examined and
analyzed
to determine the sufficiency of the allegation." He also maintains that
it was error for the court to make findings of fact and decide the
criminal
cases on the merits, before issue had been joined, and before any
evidence
has been properly presented.
The defense thoroughly
answered these points.
The Office of the
Solicitor
General does not deny that the Beloncios had been committed to jail by
order of competent authorities of the American forces of liberation.
The
record fails to show any motion for reconsideration by the provincial
fiscal
disputing the admissions attributed to him in the court's decision.
Hence
we are justified, in assuming , that such representations had been
made.
Consequently when the defense urged that the facts charged did not
constitute
an offense, invoking not only the allegations of the information but
also
the admissions made by the fiscal, the trial judge rightly sustained
the
motion. Because the Beloncios had been placed by competent authority of
the United States military forces in the official custody of
defendants,
who were public officials entrusted with the detention of prisoners,
they
could not very well be turned loose without a countermand. The fiscal
should
have mentioned other subsequent circumstances, if any, establishing
defendants'
duty [which they failed to fulfill] to release the Beloncios.
It must be noted that
the Section of the Rule [Sec. 2(a), Rule 113] permitting a motion to
quash
on the ground that "the facts charged do not constitute an offense"
omits
reference to the facts detailed "in the information." Other sections of
the same rule would imply that the issue is restricted to those alleged
in the information [See Secs. 9 and 10, Rule 113]. Prima facie,
the "facts charged" are those described in the complaint, but they may
be amplified or qualified by others appearing to be additional
circumstances,
upon admissions made by the people's representative, which admissions
could
anyway be submitted by him as amendments to the same information. It
would
seem to be pure technicality to hold that in the consideration of the
motion
the parties and the judge were precluded from considering facts which
the
fiscal admitted to be true, simply because they were not described in
the
complaint. Of course, it may be added that upon similar motions the
court
and the fiscal are not required to go beyond the averments of the
Information,
nor is the latter to be inveigled into a premature and risky revelation
of his evidence. But we see no reason to prohibit the fiscal from
making,
in all candor, admissions of undeniable facts, because the principle
can
never be sufficiently reiterated that such official's role is to see
that
justice is done; not that all accused are convicted, but that the
guilty
are justly punished. Less reason can there be to prohibit the court
from
considering those admissions, and deciding accordingly, in the interest
of a speedy administration of justice.
The Beloncios were,
thus, deprived of their liberty by order of the military authorities, a
few days after the liberations of Mindoro. Judicial notice may be taken
of the fact, that upon military occupation and before the establishment
of the normal processes of civil government the liberties and rights of
citizens are likely to suffer temporary restrictions, what with the
exigencies
of military strategy, or the confusion usually resulting from the
situation.
While the infringement of constitutional precepts and privileges is not
to be tolerated, war necessities and consequences cannot be overlooked.
At any rate, no reasons are shown why the irregularity, if any,
committed
by others, should be visited upon defendants-appellees. The acts
imputed
to them, as herein recorded, do not, of themselves, constitute a
punishable
offense. The appealed decision is affirmed. So ordered.
Moran, C.J.,
Ozaeta, Paras, Jaranilla, Feria, De Joya, Pablo, Hilado and Briones, JJ.,
concur.
Separate
Opinion
PERFECTO,
J.,
Concurring:
We
concur. To attain
the substantial ends of justice, procedural technicalities must be
dispensed
with, and the court rules must be interpreted so as to give them the
resiliency
demanded by the circumstances of the case. Court rules must give way to
judicial liberalism and legal progress. The law embodied in them must
grow
and develop. Even the calcareous shells of the large phylum of
mollusks,
notwithstanding their rocky hardness and apparent fixity, grow in
answer
to the evolutionary requirements of biological laws.
Prosecution's
statements
belong to a class of evidence of the highest order in behalf of the
accused.
It is based on the same principle upon which estoppel is established,
and
from which the ad hominem argument in logic derives its force. |