GR 1367; (January, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1367 : January 4, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. PACIFICO GONZAGA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
On October 21, 1902, an information was filed charging Pacifico Gonzaga, then the municipal president of Ronda, Cebu, with the crime of usurpation of judicial power. It was alleged that between July 21 and 25, 1902, a complaint for malfeasance was filed before him against the duly appointed justice of the peace, Ruperto Gimarino. Gonzaga, allegedly motivated by a long-standing enmity, admitted the complaint, conducted a preliminary investigation, took testimonies, and ordered Gimarino’s arrest, despite the presence and authority of both the justice of the peace and an auxiliary justice in the town. After trial, the Court of First Instance found Gonzaga guilty and sentenced him to three years of suspension from office. Gonzaga appealed the decision.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant, Pacifico Gonzaga, is guilty of the crime of usurpation of judicial powers under Article 374 of the Penal Code.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and ordered the defendant’s acquittal.
The Court held that while Article 374 of the Penal Code punishes an executive officer who assumes judicial powers, the evidence showed that Gonzaga did not act in bad faith or with malice. The Municipal Code and Act No. 194 authorized municipal presidents to exercise judicial authority in criminal cases in the absence or disqualification of both the justice of the peace and the auxiliary justice. The Court found that Gonzaga, upon receiving the complaint, likely believed in good faith that it was his duty to act, possibly under the presumption that the justice of the peace had refused to administer justice and that the auxiliary justice was similarly unwilling. This belief was bolstered by the fact that when the auxiliary justice later demanded the records of the investigation, Gonzaga complied and turned them over. His discontinuance of the proceedings upon this demand indicated an excess of authority rather than a willful and malicious usurpation of judicial functions. Therefore, the element of criminal intent was lacking.