Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24981)
Facts:
Martin v. Delgra, Jr., G.R. No. L-24981. January 30, 1970, the Supreme Court En Banc, Sanchez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Martin Delgra, Jr. was an assistant provincial fiscal of Davao. Respondents were Hon. Alfredo I. Gonzales, Presiding Judge, Branch II, Court of First Instance of Davao, and the Chief of Police, Davao City (the latter as the officer ordered to effectuate the arrest). The dispute arose from an incident in Branch II's courtroom on September 13, 1965, during the trial of Criminal Case No. 8666 (People v. Florencio Suarez, et al.) in which an offended party, Pascuala Kudera, was testifying in Cebuano and being cross‑examined.During cross‑examination defense counsel questioned whether the witness had "called their names," and an interpreter rendered the witness's answer as "I called their names." The prosecuting fiscal (petitioner) sought to correct the translation, explaining that the witness in Cebuano said "Angel?" and that she called "Angel" rather than voluntarily stating names. A verbal exchange between the fiscal and the judge followed, with the judge repeatedly directing the witness to answer and manifesting impatience as the fiscal attempted clarification and asked for reconsideration of the ruling on interpretation. The judge ordered the bailiff to remove the fiscal from the courtroom; the bailiff initially complied by removing him but, at the fiscal's request, took him first to the fiscal's office where other fiscals prevailed on the bailiff not to take the fiscal to jail pending an application for reconsideration.
That same day the judge issued a written order finding the fiscal guilty of direct contempt and commanding the Chief of Police (or any policeman) to arrest and commit the fiscal to the municipal jail for 24 hours "until such further order or notice from this Court ordering his release," and instructing the bailiff to serve a copy of the order on the Chief of Police immediately. Petitioner filed a petition for certi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit a grave abuse of discretion in adjudging petitioner guilty of direct contempt and ordering his arrest and imprisonment?
- Did petitioner’s conduct amount to direct contempt punishable under Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court?
- Was certiorari an appropriate remedy to chal...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)