37 Martinez v Morfe and habeas corpus but since he was released on bail, the petition now is
GR NO. L-34022 in the nature solely of a certiorari proceeding.
March 24, 1972
By: Gayares
Topic: Violation of parliamentary immunity (Art. 145)
Petitioners: Manuel Martinez
Respondents: Hon. Jesus Morfe of CFI Manila and the City Warden of Manila
Ponente: Fernando, J.
RECIT-READY/SUMMARY:
DOCTRINE: Breach of peace covers every and all crimes defined or not defined by
the RPC. Therefore, parliamentary immunity, as provided for in the Constitution,
cannot be invoked by elected officials in case of criminal liability.
FACTS:
 Martinez alleged that information against him for falsification of a public
document was filed. The basis of the information was his statement
under oath in his certificate of candidacy for delegate to that
Constitutional Convention. He said that he was born on June 20, 1945
when in truth and he knew that he was born on June 20, 1946.
 There was a special appearance on his part questioning the power of
respondent Judge to issue a warrant of arrest and seeking that the
information be quashed.
 An order from the lower court was released, suspending the release of
the warrant of arrest until it could act on the motion to quash by
Martinez.
 Then came an omnibus motion from him, with previous leave of court, to
quash the information, to quash the warrant of arrest, or to hold in
abeyance further proceeding in the case. It was not favorably acted on.
 Respondent Judge rendered an order denying Martinez’s omnibus motion
to quash.
 Martinez believes that the warrant and the information are null and void
so he did not post the required bond by the court. The City Sheriff then
arrested him.
 At the time of filing the petition, he was confined at the City Jail in
custody of respondent City Warden. He was on his way to attend the
plenary session of the Constitutional Convention and such arrest was
against his will and over his protest.
 He was arraigned and there was such a motion by Martinez to reconsider
the court’s order. It was denied again. He filed the petition for certiorari
 What is sought by Martinez is the warrant of arrest against him be
quashed on the claim that by virtue of parliamentary immunity, which is
provided for by the constitution and Art. 145 of the RPC, he is immune of
arrest.
 The crime of Martinez, falsification of public document, is punishable by
prision mayor.
ISSUE:
W/N Martinez is protected from his criminal liability due to the provisions of the
constitution and Art. 145 of the RPC and is therefore immune from arrest?
HELD/RATIO:
NO – Martinez’s reliance on the constitutional provision, which, according to his
opinion, must be supplemented by what was provided for in the RPC, is futile.
There is no justification in granting his plea.
No other conclusion is allowable consistently with the plain and explicit command
of the Constitution. As is made clear in Sec. 15, Art. VI, the immunity does not cover
any prosecution for treason, felony, and breach of peace. The crime committed by
Martinez falls under the classification of breach of peace since it deals with any
offense, whether defined by the RPC or other special statutes. It is a well-settled
principle in public law that the public peace must be maintained and any breach
renders on susceptible of prosecution.
Martinez cannot justify his claim to immunity. Nor can he rely on Art. 145 of the
RPC. The RPC provision became effective in 1932, hence, it cannot survive the
Constitution, which was enacted in 1935. The repugnancy between such an
expansion of immunity and the plain command of the Constitution is too great to
be overcome.
There is a full recognition of the necessity to have members of the Congress
entitled to the freedom to enable them to discharge vital responsibilities. When it
comes to freedom from arrest, however, it would amount to the creation of a
privileged class without justification in reason, it notwithstanding their criminal
liability, they would be considered immune during their attendance in Congress.
There is likely no dissent from the proposition that a legislator can perform his
functions well without the need for any transgression of the criminal law. Should an
unfortunate event come to pass, he is to be treated like any other citizen since
public interest dictates that no crime should go unpunished.
The crime committed by Martinez is one that is considered as breach of peace.
Breach of peace covers any offense defined by the RPC. Therefore, he cannot
invoke the privilege from arrest under the Constitution.

NOTE:
 Under this case lies another, which is Bautista v Chanco. However, the
defense and situation of Bautista is completely the same as Martinez. The
only difference between the Martinez Case and the Bautista Case is that
in the latter, the crime is the violation of the Revised Election Code. The
accusation is that Bautista gave free food, drinks, and cigarettes at two
public meetings in order to garner votes. The one who filed the petition
was a losing party in the election of their district.