G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v.

Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

Tools
JURISPRUDENCE
" 1

2 (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/36088?
#
(/jurisprudences/search?
s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW)

! (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/53973?
$
citation_finder=&full_text=Suarez+v.+Platon&issue_no=&ponente=&syllabus=&title=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&year_end
s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW)

% Cross Reference Cited In

& Syllabus Decision Separate Opinions

69 PHIL 556-569

'

( EN BANC
Search Matches

) * [G.R. No. 46371. February 7, 1940.]

FURTUNATO N. SUAREZ, petitioner,

vs. SERVILLANO PLATON, Judge of
Court of First Instance of Tayabas,
The PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF
TAYABAS, VIVENCIO ORAIS and
DAMIAN JIMENEZ, respondents.

Godofredo Reyes for petitioner.

Provincial Fiscal of Tayabas Hermogenes
Caluag for respondents.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 1 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

SYLLABUS

1. MANDAMUS; PROSECUTION OF
PUBLIC OFFENSES; DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROSECUTING
OFFICERS. — We cannot overemphasize the
necessity of close scrutiny and investigation of
prosecuting officers of all cases handled by them,
but whilst this court is averse to any form of
vacillation by such officers in the prosecution of
public offenses, it is unquestionable that they may,
in appropriate cases, in order to do justice and
avoid injustice, reinvestigate cases in which they
have already filed the corresponding informations.
In the language of Justice Sutherland of the
Supreme Court of the United States, the
prosecuting officer "is the representative not of an
ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially
is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all;
and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal
prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that
justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar
and very definite sense the servant of the law, the
twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape
or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with
earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so.
But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at
liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to
refrain from improper methods calculated to
produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every
legitimate means to bring about a just one." (69
United States Law Review, June, 1935, No. 6, p.
309.)
2. ID.; JUDGES OF FIRST INSTANCE;
JURISDICTION AND DISCRETION TO DISMISS
CRIMINAL CASES; ARRESTS MADE BY PEACE
OFFICERS IN GOOD FAITH. — Considering all
the circumstances, we cannot say that Judge S. P.,
in granting the motion for the dismissal of the case

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 2 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

for arbitrary detention against Lieutenant O and the

justice of the peace of Lopez, abused his discretion
so flagrantly as to justify, in the interest of justice, a
departure from the well-settled rule that an inferior
tribunal in the performance of a judicial act within
the scope of its jurisdiction and discretion cannot
be controlled by mandamus. This is especially true
in a matter involving the examination of evidence
and the decision of questions of law and fact, since
such duty is not ministerial. ( High, Extraordinary
Legal Remedies, sec. 156, pp. 173-175.) Upon the
other hand, it should be observed that in the case
of Lieutenant O, in the face of the circumstances
surrounding the arrest as set forth in the two
motions for dismissal by the provincial fiscal of
Tayabas, which facts and circumstances must
have been investigated and duly weighed and
considered by the respondent judge of the Court of
First Instance of Tayabas, the arrest effected by
Lieutenant O cannot be said to have been entirely
unjustified. If, "under trying circumstances and in a
zealous effort to obey the orders of his superior
officer and to enforce the law, a peace officer
makes a mere mistake in good faith, he should be
exculpated. Otherwise, the courts will put a
premium on crime and will terrorize peace officers
through a fear of themselves violating the law. See
generally Voorhees on Arrest; 5 Corpus Juris, pp.
399, 416; 2 R. C. L., 450. (United States vs.
Santos, 36; Phil., 853, 855.)"

DECISION

LAUREL, J : p

This is an original petition for the peremptory

writ of mandamus filed by Fortunato N. Suarez with
this court, to compel the respondent judge to

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 3 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

reinstate criminal case No. 6426 of the Court of

First Instance of Tayabas so that the case may
proceed to trial in the ordinary course.
It appears that on May 9, 1935, Lieutenant
Vivencio Orais, of the Philippine Constabulary, one
of the respondents in this case, filed a complaint
under oath with the justice of the peace of
Calauag, Province of Tayabas, charging the
petitioner herein, Fortunato N. Suarez, and one
Tomas Ruedas, with sedition under Article 142 of
the Revised Penal Code. The complaint, upon
preliminary examination, was docketed and given
due course. While the said case was pending
preliminary investigation, Lieutenant Orais, in
obedience to an order of the Provincial
Commander of Tayabas, moved for the temporary
dismissal of the case. This motion was granted by
the justice of the peace of Calauag on May 20,
1935, and the case thus dismissed.
At the instance of the petitioner herein,
Fortunato N. Suarez, the deputy provincial fiscal of
Tayabas, Perfecto R. Palacio, in turn charged
Lieutenant Vivencio Orais and Damian Jimenez in
the justice of the peace court of Calauag with the
crime of arbitrary detention committed, according
to the information under date of July 8, 1935, as
follows:
"That on or about the 9th day of
May, 1935, in the municipality of Calauag,
Province of Tayabas, P. I., and within the
jurisdiction of this Court, the accused
Vivencio Orais being then a public officer
to wit: a second lieutenant of the
Philippine Constabulary duly appointed
and qualified as such and detailed in the
Province of Tayabas, with- out warrant of
arrest and without any legal ground
whatsoever, moved by personal grudge
and ill-feeling which he entertained

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 4 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

against Attorney Fortunato Suarez, did,

then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously arrest and detain said Attorney
Fortunato Suarez in the train while the
latter was going to Calauag, and with the
purpose of concealing the illegality of said
arrest and detention of said Fortunato
Suarez said accused Vivencio Orais
conniving with the other accused, Damian
Jimenez, justice of the peace of said
municipality, prepared and subscribed
under oath before said justice of the
peace a complaint falsely charging said
Fortunato Suarez with the commission of
the crime of sedition; that the said justice
of the peace Damian Jimenez, conniving
with the other accused Vivencio Orais with
the same purpose of concealing the
illegality of the arrest and detention of said
Fortunato Suarez, with- out legal grounds
whatsoever willfully and unlawfully issued
an order declaring that there were merits
in the complaint thereby sanctioning the
illegal and unjust arrest and detention of
Fortunato Suarez who was kept in the
municipal jail of Calauag for eight hours."
The justice of the peace of Calauag, being
one of the accused, the preliminary examination
was conducted by the justice of the peace of
Lopez, Tayabas, who thereafter bound the
defendants over to the Court of First Instance,
where the case was docketed as criminal case No.
6426. While the case was pending in the latter
court, on petition of the accused, the provincial
fiscal of Tayabas, Ramon Valdez y Nieto,
reinvestigated the case. After such reinvestigation,
he filed on April 23, 1936, a motion for the
dismissal of the case. Fortunato N. Suarez, the
petitioner herein, on May 5, 1936, asked the court
to appoint Attorney Godofredo Reyes as acting

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 5 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

provincial fiscal to handle the prosecution, alleging,

among other things, that the provincial fiscal had
no courage to prosecute the accused. On May 11,
1936, Attorney Godofredo Reyes entered his
appearance as private prosecutor, and vigorously
objected to the motion of dismissal filed by the
provincial fiscal. The Bar Association of Tayabas,
through its president, Emiliano A. Gala, entered its
appearance as amicus curiae and likewise
objected to the dismissal of the case. On August
14, 1936, the then presiding judge of Branch I of
the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, Hon. Ed.
Gutierrez David, after hearing, denied the motion,
ruling that there was prima facie case against the
accused. The court, upon petition of the provincial
fiscal, designated Deputy Provincial Fiscal Perfecto
R. Palacio to handle the prosecution. But Fiscal
Palacio, being apparently of the same opinion as
the provincial fiscal, declined to proceed, and
moved that a practicing attorney or a competent
attorney in the Bureau of Justice be designated in
his stead. Accordingly, the provincial fiscal of
Sorsogon, Jacinto Yamson, at the request of the
judge a quo was assigned by the Department of
Justice to handle the prosecution of the case.
Fiscal Yamson after going over the case likewise
entered a nolle prosequi. So, on September 23,
1936, he moved for reconsideration of the court's
order of August 14, 1936, denying the motion for
dismissal presented by the provincial fiscal.
Attorney Godofredo Reyes again vigorously
objected to this motion on the ground that there
was sufficient proof to warrant the prosecution of
the accused. The case was in this state when
Judge Emilio Peña was appointed to take the place
of Judge Gutierrez David. Later, Judge Servillano
Platon, one of the respondents herein, was
appointed to preside over Sala I of the said court to
which the said criminal case No. 6426
corresponded, and the case was thus transferred

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 6 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

to that sala for action. Judge Platon, after

consideration of all the facts and proofs submitted
in the case, reconsidered the court's order of
August 14, 1936, and dismissed the case, holding
that the evidence was insufficient to convict the
accused of the crime charged. From this order, the
petitioner herein appealed to this Court and the
case was here docketed as G. R. No. 45431. On
June 30), by a closely divided court, the appeal
was dismissed.
The petitioner has now filed with this Court
the present petition, in which, as stated in the
opening paragraph of this decision, we are asked
to issue the peremptory writ of mandamus to
compel the respondent judge to reinstate the
criminal case which had been ordered dismissed
by the said judge. The petitioner gives the following
grounds for the issuance of said writ:
"Que el mencionado Juez Hon.
Servillano Platon incurrio en un abuso
manifiesto de discrecion al sobreseer la
mencionada causa contra los otros dos
recurridos Vivencio Orais y Damian
Jimenez, despues de que el Juzgado de
Paz de Lopez habia declarado que
existen meritos para proseguirse contra
los mismos y despues de que un Juez de
Primera Instancia de la misma categoria
que el Juez Platon habia. rehusado
sobreseer la causa por creer que existian
meritos para proceder contra los
acusados.
"Que el mencionado Juez Hon.
Servillano Platon incurrio en un abuso
grave de discrecion por cuanto que las
pruebas existentes en la causa. en las
cuales se fundo el fiscal provincial al
presentar la querella en el Juzgado de
Paz, demuestran de un modo claro y

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 7 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

concluyente el delito cometido y la

responsabilidad de los acusados. [Las
expresadas pruebas constan a paginas 65
al los del adjunto alegato anexo ('A') .]
"Que el Hon. Servillano Platon
incurrio en un grave abuso de discrecion
al juzgar dichas pruebas con un criterio do
un Tribunal 'sentenciador' cuando que su
unica mision era considerarlas bajo el
criterio de un tribunal meramente
'investigador'. (E. U. vs. Barredo, 32 Jur.
Fil., 462, 482.)
" Should the writ of mandamus
prayed for be issued? We observe that
after the filing of the information by the
provincial fiscal of Tayabas for arbitrary
detention against Lieutenant Orais and the
justice of the peace of Lopez, the same
fiscal moved for the dismissal of the case,
because ' despues de una reinvestigacion
de los hechos que dieron margen a la
presente causa, y examinada la misma
con la debida atencion que su importancia
requiere asi como las circunstancias del
caso, ha llegado a la conclusion de que
no hay base justificativa para la
prosecucion de esta causa." The grounds
for this action of the provincial fiscal are
stated in his said motion for dismissal of
April 23, 1936:
"En sintesis, los hechos son: que el
dia 9 de mayo de 1935, en ocasion en
que el abogado Fortunato N. Suarez y el
teniente Vivencio Orais de la
constabularia, se encon- traron en el tren
que iba a Calauag, aquel para defender a
los sakdalistas acusados en este
municipio, y este para atender a sus
deberes oficiales en relacion con el orden

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 8 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

publico algo anormal, por causa de los

mismos sakdalistas en dicho municipio de
Calauag, ambos tuvieron un cambio de
palabras con motivo del mismo asunto
que les llevaba alli, y por haber el
abogado Suarez proferido en tono
acalorado, de que los sakdalistas estaban
perseguidos en Calauag por las
autoridades municipales y la
constabularia, y que era un abuso de las
autoridades dicha persecusion, trayendo
al propio tiempo a colacion lo ocurrido en
los municipios de Cabuyao y Sta. Rosa de
la Provincia de Laguna, que se levantaron
contra el gobierno por los abusos y
matanzas de sakdalistas en dichos
pueblos, y que lo mismo podia tener lugar
en esta Provincia de Tayabas, y que el
podia incitar a los sakdalistas, teniendo en
cuenta que con anterioridad el teniente
Orais habia recibido informes de que los
sakdalistas en Calauag habian sido
entrevistados por Tomas Ruedas, uno de
los acusados en el municipio de Sariaya
por el delito de conspiracion para cometer
sedicion, y que el abogado Suarez
ayudaria a los sakdalistas incitandoles a
la sedicion, fue el motivo por el cual el
arresto al abogado Suarez, conduciendole
al municipio como asi lo hizo con respecto
a Tomas Ruedas, quien salio al encuentro
de Suarez cuando llego a la estacion del
tren en Calauag, diciendo a este que ya
tenia arreglado a los sakdalistas en
Calauag. Que despues de haberles
arrestado, presento una denuncia contra
estos por el delito de sedicion, en el
juzgado de paz de Calauag, aunque por

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 9 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

instrucciones de sus superiores, dicho

Teniente Vivencio Orais pidio el
sobresimiento provisional de su denuncia.
"Aunque el abogado Suarez niega
que el haya proferido palabras sediciosas,
ni que haya incitado a los sakdalistas a
actos de violencia contra el gobierno
constituido o contra las autoridades y
oficiales, sin embargo, de las
declaraciones de los testigos tanto de la
acusacion como de la defensa en lo que
son consistentes, se desprende
claramente que el abogado Suarez ha
hecho manifestaciones que pueden
considerarse como sediciosas y
subversivas, maxime teniendo en
consideracion el estado caotico porque
atravesaba el municipio de Calauag con
motivo de la campaña ordenada por el
gobierno contra los sakdalistas, a raiz de
los disturbios y desordenes publicos que
tuvieron lugar en los municipios de
Cabuyao y Sta. Rosa.
"La presente causa se ha iniciado a
denuncia del abogado Sr. Godoredo
Reyes contra el teniente Vivencio Orais
de la constabularia y el juez de paz
Damian L. Jimenez, por el clelito de
detencion arbitraria.
"El delito de detencion arbitraria
esta previsto y castigado en el articulo
124 del Codigo Penal Revisado, que dice
asi:
"El funcionario o empleado Publico
aue detuviere a una persona sin motivo
legal alguno sera castigado; etc. . . '
"Sin perder de vista que la base
angular de todos los procesos criminales
son los delitos, y que a la acusacion

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 10 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

corresponde determinar exactamente si

se ha cometido o no el delito, el que
suscribe, ha analizado este extremo,
relacionando los hechos que
determinaron la alegada detencion
arbitraria de que fue objeto el abogado
Fortunato N. Suarez, con las
circunstancias y los antecedentes de la
situacion porque atravesaba entonces la
Provincia de Tayabas al igual que la
Provincia de Laguna, acondicionandolos
con las palabras proferidas por el
abogado Suarez que si en su concepto no
son sediciosas y subversivas, por lo
menos eran abusivas para con las
autoridades del gobierno, especialmente
con las de la Provincia de Tayabas a las
cuales se referian. Asi entendido el
aspecto legal de la cuestion, y haciendo
aplicacion de lo que nos dice la misma lev
en lo en que consiste la detencion
arbitraria, que para que exista este delito,
la detencion tenia que haber sido sin
motivo legal alguno, creemos que habia
algun motivo legal para la detencion del
abogado Sr. Suarez y su companero
Tomas Ruedas, y estaba justificada por
haber ellos mismos dado lugar a ello. (E.
U. vs. Vallejo y otro, 11 Jur. Fil., 202; E. U.
vs. Santos, 36 Jur. Fil., 909.)"
We have not overlooked the fact that this
motion for dismissal was denied by Judge
Gutierrez David on August 14, 1936. It appears,
however, that subsequently Fiscal Yamson who, as
stated above was assigned by the Department of
Justice to conduct the prosecution of the case,
moved for reconsideration of the court's order of
August 14, 1936, denying the motion for dismissal.
Judge Servillano Platon granted the motion for
reconsideration and dismissed the case. In this

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 11 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

motion for reconsideration not only does Fiscal

Yamson reiterate the arguments advanced by
Fiscal Valdez y Nieto in the latter's motion for
dismissal, but adds:
"(a) En lo que respecta al
acusado Teniente Orais, no existe prueba
alguna en los autos de esta causa que
dicho acusado haya arrestado al abogado
Suarez y Tomas Ruedas, solamente por el
mero gusto de arrestarles. Tampoco
existe pruebas de que el teniente Orais
haya sido inducido por motivos de
venganza o resentimiento alguno contra
dicho abogado Suarez y Tomas Ruedas al
arrestarles en el aia de autos. Aunque es
verdad que el Teniente Orais ha sido
acusado ante el Juzgado de Paz de
Sariaya por 'abusos de autoridad', sin
embargo, no consta en los autos de dicha
causa que el abogado Suarez y Tomas
Ruedas hayan intervenido como abogado
ni parte ofendida o testigos en la misma,
por tanto, no vemos razon alguna para
que el Teniente Orais tenga motivos de
vengarse de estos por dicha causa.
(Vease pag. 1, Anexo O.) A falta de
prueba sobre estos hechos, en nuestra
humilde opinion, existe a favor del
Teniente Orais la presuncion de haber
cumplido con su deber al arrestar al
abogado Fortunato N. Suarez y Tomas
Ruedas, teniendo en cuenta las
circunstancias extraordinarias reinantes
entonces en Calauag a raiz de los
disturbios y desordenes publicos que
tuvieron lugar en los municipios de
Cabuyao y Sta. Rosa de la Provincia de
Laguna, dias antes de ocurrir el suceso de
autos. Se debe tener en cuenta, ademas,
el hecho de que despues de haber

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 12 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

arrestado al abogado Fortunato N. Suarez

y Tomas Ruedas, el aqui acusado
Teniente Vivencio Orais presento
denuncia inmediatamente ante su
coacusado Damian Jimenez, juez cie paz
de Calauag, por infraccion del articulo 142
del Codigo Penal Revisado "
We cannot overemphasize the necessity of
close scrutiny and investigation of prosecuting
officers of all cases handled by them, but whilst
this Court is averse to any form of vacillation by
such officers in the prosecution of public offenses,
it is unquestionable that they may, in appropriate
cases, in, order to do justice and avoid injustice,
reinvestigate cases in which they have already
filed the corresponding informations. In the
language of Mr. Justice Sutherland of the Supreme
Court of the United States, the prosecuting officer
"is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation
to govern impartially is as compelling as its
obligation to govern at all; and whose interest,
therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it
shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As
such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the
servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that
guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may
prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed,
he should do so. But, while he may strike hard
blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as
much his duty to refrain from improper methods
calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is
to use every legitimate means to bring about a just
one." (69 United States Law Review, June, 1935,
No. 6, p. 309.)
Considering all the circumstances, we
cannot say that Judge Servillano Platon, in
granting the motion for the dismissal of the case for
arbitrary detention against Lieutenant Orais and
the justice of the peace of Lopez, abused his

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 13 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

discretion so flagrantly as to justify, in the interest

of justice, a departure from the well-settled rule
that an inferior tribunal in the performance of a
judicial act within the scope of its jurisdiction and
discretion cannot be controlled by mandamus. This
is especially true in a matter involving the
examination of evidence and the decision of
questions of law and fact, since such a duty is not
ministerial. (High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies,
sec. 156, pp. 173-175). Upon the other hand, it
should be observed that in the case of Lieutenant
Orais, in the face of the circumstances surrounding
the arrest as set forth in the two motions for
dismissal by the provincial fiscal of Tayabas, which
facts and circumstances must have been
investigated and duly weighed and considered by
the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance
of Tayabas, the arrest effected by Lieutenant Orais
cannot be said to have been entirely unjustified. If,
"under trying circumstances and in a zealous effort
to obey the orders of his superior officer and to
enforce the law, a peace officer makes a mere
mistake in good faith, he should be exculpated.
Otherwise, the courts will put a premium on crime
and will terrorize peace officers through a fear of
themselves violating the law. See generally
Voorhees on Arrest ; 5 Corpus Juris, pp. 399 416;
2 R. C. L., 450. (United States vs. Santos, 36 Phil.
853, 855.)"
The petition is hereby dismissed, without
pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Diaz and
Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions
MORAN, J., dissenting:

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 14 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

The majority decision takes for granted that

which precisely is in issue in this case.
In the morning of May 9, 1935, the accused,
Lieutenant Vivencio Orais, and Attorney Fortunato
Suarez were both in the train on their way to
Calauag, Tayabas. In the conversation which
ensued between them, Attorney Suarez made
certain remarks about the abuses of authority
committed by the officers of the Government who
conducted the raid against the Sakdalistas at
Sariaya. Upon inquiry of Lieutenant Orais as to
what party Attorney Suarez be- longed, the latter
replied that he belonged to the people's party, and,
pressed upon to state whether or not he was a
Sakdalista, Attorney Suarez replied "may be". On
the strength of these facts, Lieutenant Orais
arrested Attorney Suarez for the alleged offense of
uttering seditious words, and conducted him to the
municipal building of Calauag and there lodged
him in jail. He filed in the justice of the peace court
of the same municipality an information against
Attorney Suarez for uttering seditious words, in
violation of article 142 of the Revised Penal Code.
On the day following, Lieutenant Orais, acting
under the instruction of his superior, moved for the
dismissal of the case. Thereafter, the deputy
provincial fiscal of Tayabas, at the instance of
Fortunato Suarez, filed an information against
Lieutenant Orais and Damian Jimenez, the latter
as justice of the peace of Calauag, Tayabas, for
the crime of arbitrary detention, the information
reading as follows:
"That on or about the 9th day of
May, 1935, in the municipality of Calauag,
Province of Tayabas, P. I., and within the
jurisdiction of this Court, the accused
Vivencio Orais being then a public officer
to wit: a second lieutenant of the
Philippine Constabulary duly appointed
and qualified as such and detailed in the

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 15 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

province of Tayabas, without warrant of

arrest and without any legal ground
whatsoever, moved by personal grudge
and ill-feeling which he entertained
against Attorney Fortunato Suarez, did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously arrest and detain said Attorney
Fortunato Suarez in the train while the
latter was going to Calauag; and with the
purpose of concealing the illegality of said
arrest and detention of said Fortunato
Suarez said accused Vivencio Orais
conniving with the other accused Damian
Jimenez, justice of the peace of said
municipality, prepared and subscribed
under oath before said justice of the
peace a complaint falsely charging said
Fortunato Suarez with the commission of
the crime of sedition; that the said justice
of the peace Damian Jimenez, conniving
with the other accused Vivencio Orais with
the same purpose of concealing the
illegality of the arrest and detention of said
Fortunato Suarez, without legal grounds
whatsoever willfully and unlawfully issued
an order declaring that there were merits
in the complaint thereby sanctioning the
illegal and unjust arrest and detention of
Fortunato Suarez who was kept in the
municipal jail of Calauag for eight hours."
The justice of the peace of Lopez, Tayabas,
conducted the preliminary investigation and,
thereafter, demanded the case to the Court of First
Instance. On April 23, 1936, the provincial fiscal
moved for the dismissal of the case upon the
alleged ground that, after a supposed
reinvestigation, the new facts established therein
disclose no sufficient evidence to sustain the
information. The motion was overruled by Judge
Gutierrez David, then presiding the second branch

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 16 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. Jacinto

Yamzon, appointed as special fiscal to take change
of the case, moved for the reconsideration of the
order of Judge Gutierrez David. To this motion,
Attorney Suarez, through counsel, interposed an
opposition. Judge Servillano Platon, then presiding
the first branch of the Court of First Instance of
Tayabas, acceded to the motion and dismissed the
information. From this order, Attorney Suarez
appealed, but the appeal was dismissed by this
Court on the ground that mandamus was the
proper remedy. Accordingly, the present action is
filed in this Court.
The sole question here involved is whether
or not, according to the evidence in the hands of
the prosecution, there is sufficient ground to
proceed with the criminal case for arbitrary
detention against Lieutenant Vivencio Orais and
Justice of the Peace Damian Jimenez. A close
examination of such evidence, which is attached to
the record, will disclose that the arrest of Fortunato
Suarez by Lieutenant Orais in the morning of May
9, 1935, was prompted obviously, not by official
duty, but by personal resentment against certain
statements made by the former. I have taken pains
to scrutinize carefully the testimonies of all the
witnesses who testified in the preliminary
investigation, and they show nothing seditious in
the utterances of Attorney Suarez on the occasion
in question. My conclusion, then, is that the
detention of Attorney Suarez by Lieutenant Orais
was arbitrary, and that the charge made against
Lieutenant Orais for arbitrary detention is well
founded on facts.
The fiscal, in moving for the dismissal of the
case before the Court of First Instance of Tayabas,
mentioned a reinvestigation conducted by him of
the case, in which he supposedly found new
evidence warranting its dismissal. Counsel for
Attorney Fortunato Suarez, however, insisted on

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 17 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

the production of such new evidence before the

court, but the prosecution could not respond to
such demand. This is an indication that the
supposed additional evidence never existed.
But the majority, instead of deciding the
issue as to whether or not the evidence in the
hands of the prosecution was sufficient to proceed
with the charge for arbitrary detention, takes for
granted that such evidence was not sufficient,
relying upon the assumption that the
"circumstances surrounding the arrest as set forth
in the two motions for dismissal by the provincial
fiscal of Tayabas . . . must have been investigated
and duly weighed and considered by the
respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of
Tayabas." In other words, the majority assumes
that which is the subject of the petitioner's
challenge, which is tantamount to a refusal to
consider his complaint after he has been told that
he may come to this court by mandamus
proceedings.
Although a broad discretion must be
conceded to prosecuting attorneys and trial courts
in the determination of sufficient grounds for
dismissing or continuing a criminal prosecution, yet
when, as in this case, the basis for the action of
both officers — fiscal and judge — is produced in
this court, and we are called upon to determine
whether, on the basis of such evidence, the two
officers have abused their discretion in the manner
they have acted, it is our duty, I believe, to examine
the evidence and determine the question at issue.
And, in the present case, it is my opinion that the
evidence we have in the record sufficiently shows
that the prosecution for arbitrary detention against
Lieu- tenant Orais must take its course, and that its
dismissal without trial by the Court of First Instance
is without basis on facts and constitutes an abuse
of discretion.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 18 of 19
G.R. No. 46371 | Suarez v. Platon 5/16/20, 7:54 PM

I agree, however, that there is no reason for

including in the charge for arbitrary detention the
justice of the peace of Calauag, Damian Jimenez.
The evidence shows no connection between him
and Lieutenant Orais in the arbitrary arrest of
Attorney Fortunato Suarez.
My vote, therefore, is that the petition for
mandamus must be granted with respect to the
prosecution against Lieutenant Vivencio Orais, but
denied with respect to the prosecution against
Damian Jimenez.
Imperial, J., concur.

2 (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/36088?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW)

! (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/53973?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW)

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/41043?s_params=quBrMeLbsYC7TaBP6AWW Page 19 of 19