Title
People vs Gumban
Case
G.R. No. 13658
Decision Date
Nov 9, 1918
Accused slapped municipal president during official duties; convicted of assault on person in authority; penalty reduced due to circumstances.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 13658)

Facts Established at Trial

Petronilo Gumban was engaged in official municipal duties, inspecting quarantine measures in the barrio of Pavia. A complaint was raised by Gregorio Ismaiia about a carabao owned by Policarpio Gumban (brother of the accused) causing damage to a planted area. Gregorio seized the animal and brought it to the police station within the quarantine zone. Epifanio Gumban and Nicomedes Gumban (accused) protested the seizure, but upon the municipal president affirming the legality of the act while promising to investigate further, Nicomedes insulted and slapped Petronilo Gumban on the face, striking the left ear. The trial court convicted Nicomedes of assault upon an agent of authority, sentencing him to over three years of prision correccional, a fine, and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Legal Analysis on the Nature of the Offense

The Supreme Court clarified that the factual circumstances constituted an assault upon a person in authority under Article 249, paragraph 2, and Article 250, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code. Article 249 criminalizes assault when any person attacks or resists a person in authority or their agents while they are performing their official duties. Article 250 specifies that the penalty is enhanced when the offender "lays hands" upon the person in authority. The Court held that a slap qualifies as laying hands, confirming the applicability of these provisions. The Court distinguished the present offense from previous rulings where minor force against agents of authority (e.g., a police officer) did not amount to assault, emphasizing that in assault upon a person in authority, the statute explicitly defines the required force as laying hands, without requiring it to be serious or substantial.

Clarification on Terminology and Proper Charge

Although the information charged the accused with assaulting an "agent of authority," the offended party was the municipal president—a person in authority, not merely an agent. The Court ruled that this misdesignation was a mere legal conclusion and did not invalidate the charge, which was substantively for assault upon a person in authority. Thus, Nicomedes could be lawfully convicted under the corrected legal characterization.

Court’s Ruling and Sentencing

The Court affirmed Nicomedes Gumban’s guilt of assault upon a person in authority and modified the penalty to four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional, with a fine of 625 pesetas or subsidiary imprisonment, plus costs. However, recognizing mitigating circumstances related to malice and damage caused, the Court recommended to the Governor-General a grant of partial pardon reducing the penalty to ten months of prision correccional.

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning

Justice Malcolm dissented, raising three principal objections:

  1. He argued that the charge should be confined to the allegation in the information—assault on an agent of authority—and should not be stretched to include assault on a person in authority to justify harsher penalties.
  2. He applied the doctrine in United States v. Tabiana and Canillas, advocating that the act amounted to the lesser offense under Article 252 of the Penal Code, warranting a lighter penalty of two months and one day of arresto mayor and a fine, rather than the severe penalties under Articles 249 and 250.
  3. He also contended that, on the facts, acquittal might be proper, but if conviction was necessary, it should be for the lesser crime under Article 252, reflecting a more proportional application of the law.

Legal Principles and Precedents Applied

The Court relied on previous Philipp

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms