G.R. No. L-12871; July 25, 1959
TIMOTEO V. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO G. H. SALVA, respondent.

FACTS

The case involves the killing of Manuel Monroy in Pasay City on June 15, 1953. Several individuals, including Oscar Castelo, were convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Pasay City and sentenced to death. Their case (People vs. Oscar Castelo, et al., G.R. No. L-10794) was pending appeal before the Supreme Court. Pending appeal, the late President Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation. Philippine Constabulary and Malacañang investigators obtained affidavits and confessions implicating other persons, including petitioner Timoteo V. Cruz, as the real perpetrators. These affidavits were forwarded to respondent Francisco G. H. Salva, the City Fiscal of Pasay City. Respondent, designating a committee, began a preliminary investigation. Petitioner Cruz was subpoenaed to testify. Through counsel, Cruz questioned the jurisdiction of respondent to conduct the investigation while the main case was on appeal and filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction to stop the investigation. Respondent justified his reinvestigation on the ground that one accused, Salvador Realista, who was not included in the original trial, remained to be tried, and he needed to assess new evidence to determine the proper course of prosecution. The Court also noted that respondent had given the investigation undue and sensational publicity.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent Fiscal Salva had the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation or reinvestigation of the murder case while it was pending appeal before the Supreme Court.
2. Whether respondent could compel petitioner Cruz to appear and testify at said investigation.
3. Whether respondent’s conduct in giving wide publicity to the investigation constituted contempt of court.

RULING

1. On the authority to investigate: The Supreme Court held that respondent Salva was warranted in conducting the preliminary investigation, but only insofar as it concerned the pending case against Salvador Realista, who had not yet been tried. The Court recognized that a fiscal’s duty includes not only prosecuting the guilty but also protecting the innocent, and respondent needed to assess new evidence to determine how to proceed against Realista. However, the investigation could not interfere with the appealed case. The writ of preliminary injunction stopping the investigation was dissolved, but limited to the purpose related to Realista.
2. On compelling petitioner’s attendance: The Court held that, in view of petitioner Cruz’s objection to appearing and testifying, respondent could not compel him to attend the investigation. The subpoena issued against petitioner was set aside.
3. On contempt of court: The Supreme Court found respondent Salva guilty of contempt for the “uncalled for and wide publicity and sensationalism” he allowed in connection with the investigation, which obstructed the administration of justice and interfered with the Court’s consideration of the appeal. The Court imposed a public censure and warning that a repetition would merit more severe disciplinary action.
DISPOSITIVE:
The petition for certiorari and prohibition was granted in part and denied in part. The preliminary injunction was dissolved regarding the investigation of Salvador Realista, but the subpoena against petitioner Cruz was set aside. Respondent Francisco G. H. Salva was publicly reprehended and censured for contempt of court. No costs.