BONIFACIO GARCIA, LORENZO AGUSTIN, CLEMENTE AGACETE AND PEDRO SANTIAGO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. ABELARDO MILLA, RESPONDENT.

Petitioners Bonifacio Garcia, Lorenzo Agustin, Clemente Agacete and Pedro
Santiago seek either the disbarment or the suspension of Atty. Abellardo Milla, upon the ground
that “instead of using his good office” as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac “for peace and avoidance of trouble and bloodshed,”
he has allegedly availed of it “as an instrument of revenge, hatred, coercion
and allied crimes,” to wit:

“(a) That during the last
agricultural year, the said Cosme Valdez, Gaudencio Toledo and their representatives, through force
and intimidation and with the aid of Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac Abelardo Milla, who is a son-in-law of Gaudencio Toledo, and armed men, took possession of the
disputed real properties which are the subject of Civil Case No. 20, Court of
First Instance of Tarlac; that presently, during the
harvesting of the palay planted thereon, the said
Cosme Valdez and Gaudencio
Toledo, with the aid of Assistant Provincial Fiscal Abelardo Milla, Philippine
Constabulary soldiers, and trucks and drivers of one Vicente Lu, a Chinese
engaged in the logging business at San Clemente, Tarlac, have been taking away the palay harvested thereon, against the will and in spite of
the protest of the undersigned petitioners;

“(b) That on several occasions,
criminal acts of physical injuries, grave coercion and robbery had been
committed against the undersigned petitioners and the corresponding criminal
charges were filed in the Municipal Court of San Clemente, Tarlac, by the Chief of
Police of the municipality; that our desire to vindicate our rights before the
courts had been thwarted by the efforts of Assistant Provincial Fiscal Abelardo Milla of Tarlac; that when the criminal case of grave coercion and
physical injuries were filed in the Municipal Court of San Clemente, Tarlac, we were
surprised to find out that charges were being investigated against the
undersigned petitioners in the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac;

“(c) That on Tuesday, February
18, 1964 and on Wednesday, February 19, 1964, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Abelardo Milla, armed with a
carbine rifle, personally supervised the trucks of the chinaman Vicente Lu and the Philippine Constabulary soldiers
as guards, in carrying away the palay from the
disputed real properties, in spite of the fact that on Tuesday, February 18,
1964, the said Assistant Provincial Fiscal Milla
should have been appearing before the Court of First Instance of Tarlac to prosecute a case which originated in the Municipal
Court of San Clement, Tarlac;

(d) That on Wednesday, February
19, 1964, in the presence of a Mr. Sabado and a Mr.
Labasan, both Philippine Constabulary soldiers,
Messrs. Ricardo Agacete, Clemente Agacete and Narciso Pascual were mauled by
Alejandro Balneg, Rodolfo Olegario and Francisco Bugarin,
and others who are representatives of Cosme Valdez and
Gaudencio Toledo.”

Upon the filing of the answer of
respondent, who denied the main allegations in petitioners’ complaint, the
matter was referred, for appropriate action, to the Department of Justice, which
caused an investigation to be conducted by Senior State Prosecutor, Vicente
Orendain. After due notice and hearing, the latter
submitted his report, in which he found the facts to be as
follows:

“Sometime in the month of August,
1944, Cosmo Valdez Civil Case No. 492 against the complainants herein, the
witnesses, Ricardo Agacete, Clemente Agacete and Domingo
Agustin and several more persons including Narciso
Pascual who (occupied or tended to occupy and gather
the produce of Lot No. 1 as described and defined in Transfer of Certificate
Title No. 213413 which was and still is issued in the name of Cosme Valdez. None of the defendants (complainants and
witnesses in the above-entitled case) had any better title than a tax
declaration which none of them presented in the
investigation of this case.

“Alejandro Balneg, Francisco Bugarin and
Rodolfo Olegarro for a time worked as tenants for some
of the complainants and others in league with them. However, in the palay season of 1961—1962 (there is no showing that they
worked over the disputed areas before 1061-1962) Balneg, Bugarin and Olegario began to turn their produce over to the heirs or
estate of Cosme Valdez, who had since died and to
Gaudencio Toledo, father-in-law of the respondent,
Abelardo Milla, who for a
lime before ho became an assistant provincial fiscal, was a lawyer in Civil Case
No. 492 defending the rights of Toledo.

“Infuriated, perhaps, because of
the turn-coatism of Balneg,
Bugarin and Olegario, the
complainants, at first led by Ricardo Agacete
(apparently the new leader is Bonifacio Garcia) and
company sought ways and means by which they may regain the lost produce now
being turned over to the Valdez heirs and to Gaudencio
Toledo.

“So on February 14, 1964, Ricardo
Agacete, Clemente Agacete, Lorenzo Agustin and Esteban Guiang went to Camilo Molacruz in Urbiztondo, Pangasinan. They had a proposition that they placed before
Molacruz. If Molacruz and
his men would gather of haul the harvest of palay in
the disputed area in Doclong, San Clemente, Tarlac, they (Molacruz and his men) could keep two thirds of the haul and
leave the remaining one third to Agecete and
company.

“The proposition was inviting and
Molacruz, apparently, readily agreed. On February 16,
1964, he went to the house of Ricardo Agacete. There
he had a conference with Agacete and company. He made
certain that 2/3 of the palay would go to him and his
men. At the same time, he ascertained that they would be supplied with some
firearms.

“The next day, on
February 17,
1964,
Molacruz and his men proceeded to Doclong where the palay in
question was being harvested and threshed by the men of
Valdez and
Toledo led by Bugarin, Balneg, Olegario. They met with opposition
as Bugarin his men refused to give the palay saying did that the palay
did belong to the men of Doclong. To scare them,
either Molacruz or one of his men fired a shot. Bugarin then complained to the P.C. soldiers on the
premises. Molacruz, Conrado
Lomboy and Domingo Agustin together with Bugarin were taken to Camp Makabulos for investigation. After the
investigation, because it was already late in the night and there was no
transportation, Molacruz, Lomboy and Agustin were placed in the guardhouse to sleep.
The next morning of February 18,
1964, the
trio were released after they signed a paper on which
was stated that they went to Makabulos and slept there
voluntarily—a standard operating procedure of peace officers who are afraid that
they may be held liable for one offense or another. The three had their
breakfast and lunch in Makabulos after Atty. Napoleon
Apostol and Ricardo Agacete
came over to give each of them P5.00 for expenses and
transportation.

“Due to the incident in the
afternoon of February 17, 1964, Camilo Molacruz was charged for attempted murder by the
Constabulary. Molacruz, scalded, went back to Urbiztondo. Conrado Lomboy passed by Doclong where he
remained till the next day when he was seen on the premises in question together
with Gregorio Arenas.

“In the morning of
February 19,
1964,
Fiscal Abelardo Milla who
had heard that there were malefactors (“goons”) from Urbiztondo led by Camilo Molacruz threatening the peace in Doclong, San Clemente, Tarlac proceeded to the area in question together with
Atty. Panfilo Valdez in the jeep of the latter. There
they saw some P. C. soldiers. The respondent conversed with Cpl. Alfredo Sabado briefly. Sabado told Milla that two men of Molacruz,
Lomboy and Arenas, were still there. The fiscal
accosted Lomboy and Arenas warning them with arrest
for any trouble they would make and exhorting them to leave the premises. They
left.

“* * * * * *
*”

“It is easy to see that the
complainants in the above-entitled case concocted a story to even up matters
with the Valdez heirs? Gaudencio Toledo and the
respondent. Frustrated in everything they tried to do to acquire the land
under question and the benefits of its produce, they thought of using force and
intimidation. The succession of events in the afternoon of February 17, 1964
proved favorable to them. By then, no one had yet come in the circumstances by
which the men of Molacruz led by him had come into the
scene. It was only after Molacruz revealed his story
in March, 1964, that a connection was established between him and the defendants
in Civil Case No. 402 of the CFI of Tarlac. Taking
advantage of just such a situation, the complainants herein prepared affidavits
accusing Olegario and company together with some P.C.
soldiers for robbery. It was easy for them to do so in view of the practice
obtaining in the Offices of Chiefs of Police throughout the country. Chiefs of
Police usually, upon receipt of complaining sworn statements, draw up a
complaint or complaints and forward the same to the Municipal Courts (formerly
justice of the peace courts) for investigation and disposition, either to
dismiss or issue a warrant of arrest. This is unlike the practice obtaining in
Fiscals’ Offices who have the power to investigate and dispose of a given case
as provided by law.

“In this case it was no
different; for the Chief of Police upon receipt of the affidavits of the
complainants immediately filed Criminal Cases Nos. 120 and 121 with the
Municipal Court of San Clemente, Tarlac. But before there cases could he dismissed or even
without awaiting for the dismissal of the cases of robbery the complainants very
astutely changed the charge to grave coercion in order to include Abelardo Milla, the respondent
here. This was preparatory to the filing of the above-entitled case with the
Supreme Court and administrative charges with the Department of Justice and the
Office of the President against the respondent assistant
fiscal.

“Unfortunately for Milla, the charges filed by Francisco Bugarin against Molacruz did not
include those who were in league with him (the complainants) because of absence
of evidence to link them with him at the time,
otherwise the shoes would have been on the other foot.

“It is too clear to escape any
notice that the witnesses of the complainants who executed their affidavits on
February 20 and 22, 1964 (Annexes ‘C and ‘D’) attached to the complaint, of
Ricardo Agacete and Clemente
Agacete, did not state that Milla was on the promises with a gun or guns or that he was
there at all. But those who executed affidavits on February 23,
1964,
namely Adriano Agsaoa (a relative of Narciso Pascual), Domingo Agustin,
Melecio Labiano and Larry
Neri involved Milla one way
or the other with the incidents. (See Annexes ‘A’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ of the
Complaint).

“Narciso Pascual who executed an
affidavit also on February 23, 1964, but who did not incriminate Milla in any way was carefully excluded from being a witness
in (his investigation.

“In other words the involvement
of Abelardo Milla in the
incidents of February 17, 18 and 19, 1964 came to the so-called aggrieved
parties as an afterthought when he had exercised his prerogatives as an
assistant provincial fiscal in driving away alleged “goons” (who in reality were
hired men of the complainants) from the premises in question. It is the duty of
a public prosecutor to protect indent and law-abiding citizens from undue
harassments and to maintain the peace over and above their powers to
prosecute.”

Accordingly, the investigator
recommended dismissal of the charges.

Inasmuch as the foregoing
findings and recommendations are supported by the record, the petition herein is
hereby dismissed. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Makalintal and Bengzon, J.P., JJ.,
concur.