Facts:

In a case designated as G.R. No. 46323, Petitioner Pedro R. Arteche, who served as the Provincial Governor of Samar, was brought before the justice of the peace court of Wright, Samar through a complaint filed by Juan E. Reas on August 29, 1936. The complaint alleged that Arteche committed light threats by brandishing a revolver against Reas during a confrontation regarding a placard Reas had posted in public places. The details described that Arteche summoned Reas and during their altercation, he threatened him with a gun while asking if Reas wanted to fight. An attached affidavit from a witness, Leonardo Z. Cecilio, corroborated Reas’s account of the incident. However, the justice of the peace court did not take sworn statements from the complainant or the witness in a formal question-and-answer format, which raised contentions regarding procedural irregularities.

Subsequently, the justice of the peace determined that probable cause existed for the issuance of a warrant for A

...

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

• A complaint under oath was filed by Juan E. Reas against Pedro R. Arteche, charging him with light threats.
• The complaint alleged that on August 29, 1936, in the barrio of Casandig, municipality of Wright, the petitioner—while serving as Provincial Governor of Samar—drew his revolver and threatened the complainant.

Details of the Incident

• The complaint stated that during an altercation triggered by the complainant’s posting of a placard in public places, the petitioner’s actions included drawing his revolver with his right hand and holding cartridges in his left.
• According to Leonardo Z. Cecilio’s sworn statement, during the confrontation the petitioner aimed the weapon at the right side of the complainant’s wrist and asked, “Now, do you want to fight?”
• The complainant responded in the negative.

Procedural History and Conduct of the Justice of the Peace

• The case was docketed as No. 1737 by the justice of the peace in Wright, Samar, after preliminary investigations which included inquiries and the collection of sworn statements.
• The complaint was signed and sworn by Juan E. Reas, and the statement of witness Leonardo Z. Cecilio was attached to the record.
• Despite procedural concerns—including the format of the sworn statements and the manner in which depositions were taken—the justice of the peace ordered the petitioner’s arrest after declaring probable cause.

Petitioner’s Challenges and Demurrers

• Pedro R. Arteche filed a demurrer alleging:
• Lack of jurisdiction of the justice of the peace to try the case.
• Fatally defective complaint due to improper drafting and charging more than one offense.
• Insufficiency in the description of the acts constituting the offense.
• Absence of proper sworn testimony by both the complainant and the witness.
• Additionally, he moved to disqualify the justice of the peace on the ground of a familial relationship with the witness, Leonardo Z. Cecilio, but was denied.
• The petitioner further argued that the issuance of the warrant of arrest was illegal and arbitrary, given his status and the jurisdictional boundaries stipulated under relevant laws.

Jurisdictional and Statutory Considerations

• The proceedings were conducted in accordance with section 13 of General Orders No. 58 as amended by Act No. 3042.
• The petitioner’s arrest was justified by the fact that his legal residence was in Catbalogan, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Wright justice of the peace.
• The case involved a mere misdemeanor—threats as defined under paragraph 1, Article 285 of the Revised Penal Code—and fell within the ambit of the justice of the peace’s jurisdiction under Act No. 2041 and Act No. 4178.

Issue:

Jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace

• Whether the justice of the peace of Wright had proper jurisdiction to try the case despite the petitioner’s position as Provincial Governor and his residency outside Wright.

Sufficiency and Validity of the Complaint

• Whether the complaint was fatally defective for not adequately describing the acts constituting the offense.
• Whether the absence or improper method of recording the sworn testimony of the complainant and the only witness rendered the complaint defective.

Legality of the Arrest and Issuance of the Warrant

• Whether the warrant for arrest, issued on the basis of the information presented and the preliminary investigation, was valid and complied with statutory requirements.

Abuse of Judicial Discretion

• Whether the justice of the peace abused his discretion in ordering the arrest and in dismissing the petitioner’s objections and demurrers.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)