Case Summary (G.R. No. 39275)
Issue on Appeal
The Provincial Fiscal appealed, asking whether an assault upon a public teacher constitutes:
- Assault upon a person in authority (Art. 148 RPC) or an agent of authority (Art. 149 RPC)
- Any other grave or light felony punishable under the Revised Penal Code
Analysis of Legislative Framework on Assault upon Authority
Under the old Penal Code (Art. 251), assault upon “public officers and agents of authority” was specifically penalized. Early Supreme Court decisions (People v. Villacenda; Lagrimas; Tacud) applied it to teachers as public officers. However, when the Revised Penal Code was enacted, references to “public officers” were omitted from the corresponding provision (Art. 149), limiting its scope to persons “coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents.”
Distinction between Public Officers, Persons in Authority, and Agents
Revised Penal Code definitions clarify:
- Person in authority (Art. 152): someone “directly vested with jurisdiction” under law (e.g., judges, commissioned law-enforcement officers)
- Agent of authority (Art. 149): someone charged by law with maintaining public order and assisting persons in authority
- Public officer: one who performs public functions but lacks direct jurisdiction or formal agency status
Teachers, though public officers, are neither persons in authority (they exercise delegated educational duties, not jurisdiction) nor agents of authority (they are not charged with general maintenance of public order or armed enforcement).
Legislative Intent in Revising the Penal Code
By omitting “public officers” from Art. 149, the Legislature intentionally confined the special penalty for assault to agents of authority and their auxiliaries. This deliberate narrowing resolves the conflict between general assault provisions (Arts. 148–149) and the treatment of “persons of rank” under Art. 265, which separately addresses less serious physical injuries against teachers and others.
Classification of the Offense under the Revised Penal Code
Mendoza’s act—slapping the teacher—is not assault upon a person in authority or agent. It constitutes a light felony: maltreatment under Art.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 39275)
Procedural History
- The provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed Information No. 4851 charging Ricardo Mendoza with assault upon a person in authority (his teacher, Iluminada Tinio) under the old Penal Code.
- The trial court granted Mendoza’s motion to dismiss the information, holding that the alleged facts did not amount to a crime of assault on a person in authority but at most a misdemeanor or light felony.
- The People appealed to the Supreme Court to set aside the dismissal order.
Facts
- On or about September 30, 1932, in San Fernando, Pampanga, Ricardo Mendoza, a pupil, slapped his teacher, Iluminada Tinio, on one cheek.
- The assault occurred while Tinio was performing her duties inside the high school building.
- The information alleged willful, unlawful, and criminal laying of hands on a person in authority.
Issue
- Whether the alleged slap constituted the crime of assault upon a person in authority or an agent of authority, or any other grave or light felony under the Revised Penal Code.
Applicable Law
- Article 148, Revised Penal Code: defines assault upon persons in authority and agents.
- Article 149, Revised Penal Code: assault upon persons coming to the aid of authorities or their agents.
- Article 152, Revised Penal Code: defines “person in authority.”
- Article 266, Revised Penal Code: maltreatment (light felony).
- Article 265, Revised Penal Code: less serious physical injuri