This defendant was charged  with  the crime of illegal exaction, in  a complaint  which contained  the following allegations: 

"That the said accused, in or about the month of October, 1907, in the  pueblo of Urdaneta of the Province of Pangasinan,  while he was justice of the peace  6f the said pueblo  of Urdaneta and was  conducting a preliminary investigation relative to the theft of some carabaos belonging to Benigno Lucero and Esteban Larosa, did maliciously, unlawfully and  criminally demand and exact of the said Benigno Lucero and Esteban  Larosa, when they appeared before him to demand as owners their  respective carabaos,   held for safe-keeping as a result of the aforesaid preliminary investigation,  that they each pay  him the sum of P6 in order that they might have the said animals returned to them and that they might not be sent with such carabaos to the Court of First Instance  in Lingayen; and the said Benigno Lucero and Esteban Larosa, desirous of regaining their respective carabaos and acceding to the demands of the accused, Jose Behgson, did each deliver to him the sum of P6, and when they requested of him receipts for these payments the said accused, Jose Bengson, did refuse to give them such:  acts constituting  the said crime of illegal exaction, defined and penalized  by article 399, in  connection with articles 534 and 535, No.  1, of the Penal Code, and performed within the jurisdiction  of this Court of First Instance; in violation of law."

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the Honorable Isidro Paredes, judge, found the defendant guilty of the crime set out in the complaint and sentenced him to be imprisoned for a period of two months and one day of arresto mayor, with the accessory penalties of the law,  to return  to  the  offended parties the sum of P6 each, with  the additional  penalty  of eleven  years and one day of inhabilitacion especial temporal, with subsidiary imprisonment in case  of insolvency, and to pay  the costs.

From  that  sentence the defendant  appealed  and made the following assignments of  error in this court: 

"I. The evidence does not prove any crime against the defendant. 

"II. The judgment really sentences the defendant for the crime of estafa, while he was charged with the crime of illegal exaction."

From an examination of the record  certain facts appear to be proven beyond dispute.  They are as follows:

That  for some years prior to  the commencement of the present  criminal action, the defendant," Jose  Bengson, had been justice of the peace of the municipality of  Urdaneta of the Province of  Pangasinan, and  that one  Francisco Austria, had been acting as his clerk or escribiente; that said clerk or escribiente had been working for said justice of the peace for a long period without any salary whatever; that several months  prior  to  the  commencement of the present action, the said justice of the peace had dismissed said clerk  and refused to permit him to  continue to act as said clerk or escribiente; that during the time the defendant was acting as said justice of the peace, borne carabaos belonging to Benigno Lucero and Esteban Larosa had disappeared (perhaps had been stolen);  that the carabaos were found by the police  and taken to the municipality of Urdaneta and were later  identified as the carabaos of the said Benigno Lucero  and  Esteban Larosa; that a preliminary investigation was made, after which the  carabaos were returned  to  their respective owners; that for some reason which  the  record  does  not disclose, the justice  of the peace desired to remand the record of such examination to the Court of First Instance of the Province of Pangasinan and that he  required of the owners of said carabaos their documents in order  that  they might accompany the record to the Court of First Instance; that the owners  of the carabaos desired to retain  the originals of said documents, whereupon the justice  of  the peace directed his secretary (Francisco  Austria)  to  prepare copies of said original  documents (which copies  appear in the  record as Exhibits A and B);  that the  secretary prepared the copies (Exhibits A and B) and later returned the originals to the owners of said carabaos; these documents seem  to haVe been prepared some time in the year 1907.

The said Benigno Lucero and Esteban Larosa now allege that the defendant (Jose Bengson) as justice of the peace, required each of them to pay him the sum of P6 before he (the defendant) would deliver to them the copies (Exhibits A and B)  of the documents for their carabaos.  The defendant denies that he required the owners  of the carabaos to pay him P6 or any other sum for the  said copies.  The defendant alleges that his escribiente, Francisco Austria, collected from Benigno Lucero and Esteban Larosa the sum of P6.  Benigno Lucero and Esteban Larosa testify positively that they each paid to the defendant the Sum of under the  circumstances alleged in the complaint.  Francisco Austria declared that these persons had paid to the defendant each the sum of P6.   The defendant denies positively that he required or received of said persons any sum whatever.  In addition to the declarations of the defendant, we have the positive declarations of two or three witnesses who appear to be creditable, to the fact that in the year 1908, perhaps more than a year after the alleged payment of said sums, the said Benigno Lucero and Esteban Larosa appeared  in the office of the justice of the peace of the pueblo of Urdaneta and presented a complaint against Francisco Austria, signed  and sworn to by Benigno Lucero, charging the said Austria with the crime of estafa, alleging that the said  Austria  had voluntarily, ilfegally and criminally exacted from  Benigno Lucero and Esteban Larosa, each the sum of P6.  In support of the declaration of these apparently creditable  witnesses, the said complaint was presented during the trial as evidence and marked Exhibit B.  Exhibit B also discloses that a warrant was issued for the arrest of the defendant, Francisco Austria; that he was arrested and gave bond for his appearance for trial before the said justice of the peace; that the time was set for said hearing of said cause on or about the 6th of October, 1908, and  that for some reason the defendant  (Austria) asked that the trial of the cause be set  down for the 12th of October, 1908; on the 12th of October, the trial of the cause was  again postponed until the 16th of October at 9 o'clock a. m.

The name of Benigno Lucero is signed by a cross to the complaint presented against Francisco Austria.  Two or three witnesses swore positively that they saw the said Lucero put his cross upon the complaint. The name of Benigno Lucero also appears  again by cross in Exhibit A, attested by Pablo Manzano, auxiliary justice of the peace of said pueblo. Exhibit A is an order of the justice  of the peace of said pueblo transferring the hearing of the cause against Austria from the 12th to the 16th of October, 1908.  Notwithstanding the facts contained in Exhibits A and B presented by the defense, Benigno Lucero and Esteban Larbsa deny positively that such complaint  was ever  presented against Francisco Austria.  Francisco Austria's name also appears upon the different orders found in Exhibits A and B made by the justice of the peace.

The defendant herein testified, and the fact is not denied, that flrior to the time of the trial of the cause commenced, against Francisco Austria, certain charges had  been preferred against  him (the defendant) for administrative investigation and for that reason he had directed his auxiliary justice of the peace to take charge of  and conduct all proceedings pending  in the office  of the  justice  of  the  peace of said pueblo.

The appellant alleges that Francisco Austria,  whom he had dismissed as his clerk or escribiente, had  willfully and maliciously instituted not only the present action, pending against him, but all of the charges which had been presented for administrative investigation.

In view of the fact that the prosecuting witnesses in the present action, Benigno Lucero and Esteban  Larosa, had, nearly a year prior to the commencement of the present action, caused a complaint to be presented against Francisco Austria, charging him with the same crime which now they impute to the defendant, we are inclined to believe that the allegations in the  complaint in the'present action are not true and that the theory of the defendant that the present proceedings were brought solely for the purpose of annoying and prejudicing him, is true.

Without discussing the assignments of error presented here by the appellant, and in view of the proof contained in Exhibits A and B of the  defense, we are of the opinion that the defendant is not guilty of the crime  charged and that the complaint against him should be dismissed and that he should be discharged from the custody of the law, with costs de oficio.   So ordered.

Arellano,  C. J., Mapa, Carson, and Trent, JJ., concur.