FACTS:
During the Rizal Day celebration in Carigara in 1906, Dem Chipday, a Chinaman, was arrested by Gregorio Salvacion, a municipal policeman, and detained in jail for about fifteen hours. The incident began with a disturbance. According to Chipday, Pomposo Burgueta, a municipal councilor, knocked off his hat, struck him, and ordered Salvacion to arrest him. Burgueta, however, claimed he only pointed at Chipday to remove his hat, whereupon Chipday struck him with a whip. A policeman then came up, arrested both, but released Burgueta upon his promise to reappear. The Court found it difficult to ascertain the precise aggressor but confirmed an open breach of the peace involving “hot words, and blows.” The Court of First Instance of Leyte convicted both Burgueta and Salvacion of illegal detention.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Gregorio Salvacion, a municipal policeman, is criminally liable for illegal detention for arresting an individual during a clear breach of peace.
2. Whether Pomposo Burgueta, a municipal councilor and one of the parties involved in the disturbance, is criminally liable for the Chinaman’s arrest.

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, acquitting both defendants.

1. As to Gregorio Salvacion: The Court held that it was not only the right but also the duty of the policeman to suppress an open breach of the peace. While his judgment or action might have been imperfect, the evidence did not establish bad faith, recklessness, or abuse of power. Police officers are not required to fully ascertain the right or wrong of a quarrel before making an arrest; their primary duty is to restore order. In doing so, they may, in honest judgment, act on patent facts to identify the guilty person and arrest without a warrant to suppress present disorder. Thus, Salvacion was absolved.
2. As to Pomposo Burgueta: The Court found that the policeman acted not by Burgueta’s order but by his request, Burgueta being one of the contending parties in the disturbance. For merely making such a request, Burgueta is not criminally responsible, regardless of whether it led solely to the Chinaman’s arrest or also to his own temporary detention, or what the policeman’s motives were in complying. Therefore, Burgueta was also absolved.