GR 1871; (April, 1905) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1871 : April 24, 1905
PARTIES:
Complainant-Appellee: The United States
Defendant-Appellant: Florentino Rallos
FACTS:
Florentino Rallos, the municipal president of Cebu, was convicted in the Court of First Instance for usurping judicial functions under Article 194 of the Penal Code. The charge stemmed from his actions while presiding over a case for violation of a municipal anti-gambling ordinance. The original complaint named only Francisco del Mar as the accused. However, after a judicial investigation lasting several days, Rallos rendered a judgment not only convicting del Mar but also convicting six other persons for violating the same ordinance. Furthermore, he convicted and sentenced a seventh person, Magno Seno, to three days’ imprisonment for allegedly failing to testify truthfully during the trial. Magno Seno served his sentence and later filed a complaint against Rallos for usurpation of judicial functions.
ISSUE:
Did Florentino Rallos, in convicting and sentencing persons not originally named in the complaint, commit the crime of usurpation of judicial functions under Article 194 of the Penal Code?
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the defendant.
The Court held that Rallos did not usurp or arrogate to himself judicial functions because, as municipal president, he was expressly vested with such functions by law. Section 18(g) of the Municipal Code ( Act No. 82 ) authorized the municipal president to “hold a court to hear and adjudge alleged violations of public ordinances.” Therefore, when he tried the case against del Mar and others, he was acting within the scope of his legally conferred judicial authority.
The errors he may have committedsuch as convicting persons against whom no formal complaint was filed or incorrectly convicting Magno Seno for perjurywere errors committed by a judicial officer in the exercise of his duties. Such legal errors do not constitute the crime of usurpation of judicial functions, which requires the act of unlawfully assuming a judicial role without any color of authority. The proper remedy for such errors was an appeal, not a criminal prosecution for usurpation.