Case Name: Ex Parte Medina
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1903-11-25
Citations: 4 P.R. 503
Docket Number: No. 21
Parties: Ex Parte Medina.
Judges: Mr. Justice Hernández, concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 503–509

Head Matter:
Ex Parte Medina.
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
No. 21.
Decided November 25, 1903.
Contempt — Commitment.—An order of imprisonment for contempt, in addition to the signature of the judge who delivered the sentence, must set forth the acts constituting the contempt, the time and place of the commission thereof, and the attending circumstances, and also the specification of the sentence; otherwise such sentence is wholly invalid and inoperative and the warrant of commitment issued for th'e execution thereof is null and void.
ID. — The powers of courts of justice to punish contempt of court committed against their authority is sanctioned by section 7 of the Penal Code. The provisions of the latter, therefore, do not affect those contained in the special act defining and punishing the offense of contempt of court, nor is there any conflict between them.
Id. — Criminal Prosecution. — Punishment for contempt of court inflicted under the special act does not bar a criminal prosecution for the same offense conducted by the fiscal of the proper jurisdiction.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
The writ of habeas corpus having been duly returned, the hearing thereon was had, the petitioner Julio Medina being present with his counsel, Santiago B. Palmer, as also the Fiscal of this Supreme Court, who opposed the granting of the writ for reasons deemed by him to be pertinent.
At this hearing the court had also before it the original record, transmitted by the District Court of Mayaguez, of the proceedings had before it against Hobart S. Bird and Julio Medina, for contempt of the court that had cognizance of the trial by jury of Osvaldo Baez. From this record it appears that after judgment had been rendered .by the presiding judge of said court, Arturo Aponte, whereby the petitioner, Julio Medina, was sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment in the public jail of Mayagiiez and to the payment of a fine of two hundred dollars, and Hobart.S. Bird to nineteen days’ imprisonment and a fine of one hundred dollars, and a warrant was ordered to be issued for the commitment of the defendants, the clerk of the District Court of Mayagüez issued a warrant to the official in chatge of the public peace, authorized only by aforesaid clerk and failing to specify the acts constituting the contempt charged. In compliance with said warrant Medina was committed to the public jail of said city, in custody of the warden of said penal establishment.
Messrs, cle Diego and Palmer, for petitioner.
Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.

Opinion:
' Chief Justice Quiñones,
after making the above statement of facts, rendered the opinion of the court.
Section 3 of the act of the Legislative Assembly of this Island, entitled "An Act defining the offense of contempt of court and providing for the punishment thereof", approved March 1, 1902, provides that "whenever a person is fined or committed to jail for contempt of court, an order or warrant for such fine or imprisonment must be signed by the judge delivering such sentence, setting forth the act or acts constituting such contempt, with the time and place of the commission thereof, and the circumstances thereof, and specifying the sentence of the court; otherwise such sentence will he wholly invalid and inoperative "; and as the warrant issued for the commitment of the petitioner, Julio Medina, does not contain the requirements prescribed in aforesaid section 3, for neither is it signed by the trial judge, Aponte, nor does it set forth the act constituting the contempt, the sentence pronounced by said Judge Aponte is null and void by express provision of the law, and therefore the warrant issued for the execution of said sentence upon the person of the petitioner, Julio Medina, is wholly invalid and inoperative.
The theory advanced by the Attorney General in his brief, to the effect that the act of the Legislative Assembly of this Island, defining and punishing the offense of contempt of court, has been repealed by the Penal Code, cannot be accepted, because aside from the fact that it is not to be presumed that a law framed by the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of strengthening and assuring the authority and prestige of courts of justice, was inténded to be in use only temporarily, viz., from March, 1902, when it was approved, to July 1, of the same year, when the Penal Code took effect, it appears, on the contrary, that the latter does not affect it in the least, inasmuch as according to section 7 of said Code, nothing established by, and contained in the same, affects "any power conferred by law upon any court martial, or military authority or other officer, to impose or inflict punishment upon offenders, nor any power conferred by law upon any public body, tribunal or officer, to impose or inflict punishment upon offenders;" whence it is to be inferred that among these powers is undoubtedly included that conferred by aforesaid act of the Legislative Assembly upon this Supreme Court, the District Courts and any similar court duly established in Porto Rico, to punish for con-tempts against their authority, whether committed in their presence, or in any other manner provided for therein.
This doctrine is strengthened and confirmed by the act of the Legislative Assembly itself, which provides in its section 3, that punishment for a contempt of court under said section shall not bar a criminal prosecution for the same offense, conducted by the fiscal of the proper jurisdiction, but where a person, so punished is convicted upon such additional prosecution, his previous punishment under said act shall be taken into consideration by the court pronouncing sentence upon him; whence it is reasonably to be inferred that there are no contradictory or conflicting provisions in these laws, but on the contrary, that they harmonize and agree perfectly, and that both were enacted by the Legislative Assembly with a view to their subsisting conjointly and simultaneously.
Therefore, the warrant issued for the commitment of the petitioner, Julio Medina, being null and void, it comes under paragraph 3, section 483, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and said warrant cannot he re-issued, as proposed by the Attorney General in his brief, because the sentence pronounced by Judge Aponte being null and void, any warrant issued for its execution would be void and illegal.
In view of the legal provisions cited above, and the decision of this Supreme Court handed .down May 1, 1903, 3 Porto Rico Reports, 501, in a similar case brought here by Hobart S. Bird on appeal from a judgment rendered against him by the District Court of San Juan for the offense of contempt of court, the application for enlargement made by Julio Medina is granted, and accordingly he is ordered to be finally liberated, and the bail furnished by him, canceled.
Mr. Justice Hernández, concurred.
Mr. Justice Sulzbacher also concurred, basing his action on the reasons set forth .in his opinion as stated in case No. 22, Ex parte Bird.
Mr. Justice MacLeary, dissented.