Martinez V. Morfe

MARTINEZ v. MORFE 24 March 1972 | Fernando, J. GR No. L-34022 Petitioner Manuel Martinez Y Festin Respondents Jesus Morfe, Judge of CFI Manila and City Warden of Manila GR No. L-34046-7 Petitioner Fernando Bautista, Sr. Respondents Francisco Ma. Chanco, Presiding Judge CFI Baguio and Benguet PROVISION Art. 51, RPC. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. – A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a consummated felony. Art. 145, RPC. Violation of parliamentary immunity. – The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall use force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) from attending the meetings of the Assembly (Congress) or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, from expressing his opinions or casting his vote; and the penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall, while the Assembly (Congress) is in regular or special session, arrest or search any member thereof, except in case such member has committed a crim punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor. Sec. 15, Art. VI of 1935 Constitution. The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place. Sec. 15, Republic Act 6132. The laws relative to parliamentary immunity of the Members of Congress shall be applicable to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and the penalties imposed in Articles one hundred forty-three, one hundred forty-four and one hundred forty-five of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, for offenses defined therein against the Congress of the Philippines, its committees or subcommittees, or its Members shall likewise apply if such offenses are committed against the Constitutional Convention, its committees or subcommittees, or the delegates thereto. SUMMARY Manuel Martinez y Festin and Fernando Bautista were Constitutional Convention delegates. Both Martinez (falsification of a public document) and Bautista (violation are facing criminal prosecutions. In view thereof, they would like to invoke their right to immunity of arrest. Their alleged right was based on Constitutional Convention Act, wherein, delegates are entitled to the parliamentary immunities of a senator or representative. The SolGen, on behalf of the judges, disputed that the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity does not cover criminal cases. The Court held that criminal cases are not included in the immunity from arrest.

DOCTRINE It is a well-settled principle in public law that the public peace must be maintained, and any breach thereof renders one susceptible to prosecution.  When it comes to freedom from arrest, it would amount to the creation of a privileged class, without justification in reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a criminal offense, they would be considered immune during their attendance in Congress and in going to and returning from the same. FACTS  The question raised in this case is the scope to be accorded the constitutional immunity of senators and representatives from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of Congress and in going to and returning from the same except in cases of treason, felony and breach of the peace.  Petitioners Manuel Martinez and Fernando Bautista are facing criminal prosecutions. Martinez was charged for falsification of a public document before the sala of Judge Morfe. o The basis of the case against him was his statement under oath that he was born on June 20, 1945 instead of June 20, 1946. o On the other hand, Bautista was charged for violation of the Revised Election Code. Bautista was accused to be in violation of Section 51 of the RPC when he gave and distributed free of charge food, drinks and cigarettes at two public meetings. o Thus, the petitioners, as delegates of the 1972 Constitutional Convention, invoke what they consider to be the protection of the above constitutional provision, if considered in connection with Article 145 of the RPC penalizing a public officer or employee who shall, during the sessions of Congress, “arrest or search any member thereof, except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under the RPC by a penalty higher than prision mayor.  The Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondent judges in the case at bar, disputed such a contention on the ground that the constitutional provision does not cover any criminal prosecution being merely an exemption from arrest in civil cases, the logical inference being that insofar as a provision of the Revised Penal Code would expand such an immunity, it would be unconstitutional or at the very least inoperative. ISSUE W/N Martinez and Bautista are immune from arrest – NO HELD/RATIO  As is made clear in Section 15 of Article VI of the Constitution, the immunity from arrest does not cover any prosecution for treason, felony and breach of the peace. Treason exists when the accused levies war against the Republic or adheres to its enemies giving them aid and comfort. Breach of the peace covers any offense whether defined by the Revised Penal Code or any special statute. o It does not admit of doubt therefore that the immunity from arrest is granted by the Constitution was understood in the same sense it has in American law, there being a similar provision in the American







Constitution. Its authoritative interpretation in the United States was supplied by the Williamson case, a 1908 decision.  "Now, as all crimes are offenses against the peace, the phrase "breach of the peace" would seem to extend to all indictable offenses, as well those which are in fact attended with force and violence, as those which are only constructive breaches of the peace of the government, inasmuch as they violate its good order." o As far as American constitutional law is concerned, both Burdick and Willoughby could use practically identical appraising such immunity, the former stating that it "is not now of great importance" and the latter affirming that it "is of little importance as arrest of the person is now almost never authorized except for crimes which fall within the classes exempt from the privilege." The state of the American law on this point is aptly summarized by Cooley: "By common parliamentary law, the members of the legislature are privileged from arrest on civil process during the session of that body, and for a reasonable time before and after, to enable them to go to and return from the same." A prosecution for a criminal offense, is thus excluded from this grant of immunity. So it should be Philippine law, if deference were to be paid to what was explicitly agreed upon in the Constitutional Convention. It is a well-settled principle in public law that the public peace must be maintained, and any breach thereof renders one susceptible to prosecution. There is a full recognition of the necessity to have members of Congress, and likewise delegates to the Constitutional Convention, entitled to the utmost freedom to enable them to discharge their vital responsibilities. When it comes to freedom from arrest, however, it would amount to the creation of a privileged class, without justification in reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a criminal offense, they would be considered immune during their attendance in Congress and in going to and returning from the same. o In this case, the crimes for which Martinez and Bautista were arrested fall under the category of “breach of peace,” therefore, they cannot invoke the privilege from arrest provision of the Constitution. There is likely to be no dissent from the proposition that a legislator or a delegate can perform his functions efficiently and well, without the need for any transgression of the criminal law. Should such an unfortunate event come to pass, he is to be treated like any other citizen considering that there is a strong public interest in seeing to it that crime should not go unpunished.

RULING Petition for certiorari and prohibition by Delegate Fernando Bautista, Sr. are dismissed.