Professional Documents
Culture Documents
V.
PLATON
GR
No.
46371
February
7,
1940
Laurel
SUBJECT:
Canon
6
Lawyers
in
Government
Service
FACTS:
Lieut.
Vivencio
Orais
of
the
Phil.
Constabulary
and
one
of
the
respondents,
filed
a
complaint
under
oath
with
the
justice
of
peace
of
Calauag,
Province
of
Tayabas,
charging
Fortunato
Suarez,
petitioner
herein,
and
one
Tomas
Ruedas,
with
sedition.
While
the
preliminary
investigation
was
pending,
Lieut.
Orais,
in
obedience
to
an
order
of
the
Provincial
Commander
of
Tayabas,
moved
for
the
temporary
dismissal
of
the
case.
Thereafter,
Suarez
charged
Lieut.
Orais
and
Damian
Jiminez
in
the
same
court
with
the
crime
of
arbitrary
detention.
Since
the
justice
of
peace
of
Calauag,
Judge
Platon,
is
one
of
the
accused,
the
preliminary
investigation
was
conducted
by
the
justice
of
peace
of
Lopez,
Tayabas,
who
thereafter
bound
the
defendants
over
to
the
CFI.
Motion
for
dismissal
was
objected
and
denied
by
Judge
David
of
2nd
Branch
CFI
Tayabas.
Subsequently,
Fiscal
Yamson,
who
was
assigned
by
the
DOJ
to
conduct
the
prosecution
of
the
case,
moved
for
reconsideration,
denying
the
motion
for
dismissal.
Judge
Servillano
Platon,
granted
the
motion
for
reconsideration
and
dismissed
the
case
holding
that
the
evidence
was
insufficient
to
convict
the
accused
of
the
crime
charged.
Hence,
the
petitioner
appealed
to
this
Court
praying
for
a
peremptory
writ
of
mandamus
to
compel
the
respondent
judge
to
reinstate
the
criminal
case
which
had
been
ordered
dismissed.
ISSUE:
WON
there
is
sufficient
ground
to
proceed
with
the
criminal
case
for
arbitrary
detention
against
Lieut.
Orais
and
Justice
of
Peace
Jimenez.
HELD:
Petition
dismissed.
The
Court
cannot
overemphasize
the
necessity
of
close
scrutiny
and
investigation
of
prosecuting
officers
of
all
cases
handled
by
them,
but
whilst
his
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.
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
who
interest,
therefore,
in
a
criminal
prosecution
is
not
that
is
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
two-fold
aim
of
which
is
that
guilt
shall
not
escape
nor
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.
(Mr.
Justice
Sutherland
of
the
US
SC)