CRUZ V SALVA

MONTEMAYOR; July 25, 1959

(chris capul)

NATURE
Original action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction.

FACTS
- A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found Castelo, de Jesus, Bonifacio,
Mendoza, Berdugo et al. guilty of murder. They all appealed and Castelo sought new trial.
Castelo was again found guilty.
- Pres Magsaysay ordered reinvestigation. Philippine Constabulary questioned people and got
confessions pointing to persons other than those convicted.
- Castelo et al wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct reinvestigation on basis of new confessions.
Fiscal conferred w/ SolGen and the Justice Sec decided to have the results of investigation
made available to counsel for appellants.
- Chief of Phil Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the affidavits and confessions.
Salva organized a committee for reinvestigation and subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was
implicated as instigator and mastermind in the new affidavits and confessions. Cruz counsel
questioned jurisdiction of the committee and of Salva to conduct preliminary investigation bec
the case was pending appeal in the SC. Counsel filed this present petition.
- Salva said he subpoenaed Cruz bec of Cruz oral and personal request to allow him to appear
at the investigation.
- SC issued writ of preliminary injunction stopping the prelim investigation.
ISSUES
1. WON Salva and his committee can push through with the investigation
2. WON Cruz can be compelled to appear and testify before Salva
3. WON Salva conducted the investigation property

HELD
1. Yes.
- SC believed Salva that it was Cruz who personally reqested to allow him to appear at the
investigation.
- Normally, when a criminal case handled by fiscal is tried and decided and appealed to a
higher court, functions of fiscal have terminated.
However, Salva has justified his
reinvestigation bec in the orig case, one of the defendants (Salvador Realista y de Guzman)
was not included in the trial.

- The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not only to prosecute and secure conviction of the guilty
but also to protect the innocent.
- Writ of preliminary injunction dissolved. Investigation may continue.
- Petition for certiorari and prohibition granted in part, denied in part.
2. No
- Under the law, Cruz had right to be present at the investigation but he need not be present.
His presence is more of a right than a legal obligation.
3. No
- Salva shld have done investigation privately in his office and not publicly in the session hall of
Municipal Court of Pasay where microphones were installed and media people were present.
He should also not have made the media people ask questions. SC was disturbed and
annoyed by such publicity.
- Salva is publicly reprehended and censured.

In re: Gomez
43 Phil 376 Legal Ethics Contemptuous Language
In 1921, Atty. Feliciano Gomez lost an election protest case for the governorship of Laguna filed
by Juan Cailles which reached the Supreme Court. Thereafter, Gomez remarked in a
newspaper that the Supreme Court sided with Cailles as a favor to then Governor-General
Wood who was a friend of Cailles.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gomez is guilty of contempt.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court let this one go. The Supreme Court felt at that time that
declaring Gomez in contempt will only seem to vindicate his accusations against the high court.
The Supreme Court however emphasized that it is more proper to criticize the courts in relation
to pending cases such was not the case when Gomez criticized the high court. The Supreme
Court said litigants and lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said in the
heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to
condone even contemptuous language. The rule in the more progressive jurisdictions is, that
courts, when a case is finished, are subject to the same criticism as other people. Judges may
not vindicate a private wrong by a public method. Although the honor and integrity of the court
may be assailed, judges, like other persons, are relegated to the courts for redress.