G.R. No. L-20216 and L-20217 - NOVEMBER 1967 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-20216 and L-20217November 29, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Tiburcio Balbar G.R. No. L-20565November 29, 1967 Januario T. Seno, et al. vs. Hon. Jose M. Mendoza, et al. G.R. No. L-20609November 29, 1967 Juan de Borja, et al. vs. Hon. Eulogio Mencias, et al. G.R. No. L-25772November 29, 1967 Perfecto Balason vs. Ernesto Balido G.R. No. L-21114November 28, 1967 Federico Fernandez vs. P. Cuerva and Co. G.R. No. L-23226November 28, 1967 Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-24316November 28, 1967 Emiliano R. Florendo, Sr. vs. Plamasur Buyser G.R. No. L-20292November 27, 1967 Dolores Benedicto, et al. vs. Pantaleon Cañada, et al. G.R. No. L-24657November 27, 1967 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Victoriano D. Castillo, et al. G.R. No. L-25337November 27, 1967 Delfin Mayormente vs. Robaco Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-25547November 27, 1967 Juan M. Serrano, et al. vs. Muñoz (HI) Motors Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-20357November 25, 1967 In Re: Gregorio Gatchalian. Pedro Reyes Garcia vs. Felipe Gatchalian, et al. G.R. No. L-20752November 25, 1967 In Re: Sincio C. Yu. Sincio C. Yu vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-23554November 25, 1967 Honoria Lao, et al. vs. Hon. Eulogio Mencias, et al. G.R. No. L-23691November 25, 1967 Arsenio Reyes vs. Antonio Noblejas, et al. G.R. No. L-23772November 25, 1967 Bartolome Fernandez vs. Roberto Zurbano, et al. G.R. No. L-24006November 25, 1967 Josefina Juana de Dios Ramirez Marcaida vs. Leoncio V. Aglubat G.R. No. L-25356November 25, 1967 In Re: Li Siu Liat. Li Siu Liat vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-27550November 25, 1967 Eleuterio Deananeas vs. Ignacio Mangosing, et al. G.R. No. L-27961November 25, 1967 Socorro V. Alejano, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-26883November 23, 1967 Porferio Inguito vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.C. No. 102November 18, 1967 Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) vs. Hon. Emiliano C. Tabigne, et al. G.R. No. L-2338November 18, 1967 Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-16832November 18, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Alcantara, et al. G.R. No. L-19124November 18, 1967 Investment Planning Corporation of the Philippines vs. Social Security System G.R. No. L-20724November 18, 1967 Segundino Dimitui, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations of Pampanga, et al. G.R. No. L-21390November 18, 1967 Ramiro V. Aragon vs. Hon. Macario Peralta, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-21913November 18, 1967 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-23523November 18, 1967 Provincial Board of Zamboanga del Norte vs. Doroteo De Guzman, et al. G.R. No. L-23879November 18, 1967 Domestic Insurance Company of the Philippines vs. Barber Line, Macondray & Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-24097November 18, 1967 Domingo Manay vs. A. L. Buenaventura G.R. No. L-24098November 18, 1967 Buenaventura Belamala vs. Marcelino Polinar G.R. No. L-24263November 18, 1967 Fulton Insurance Company vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. G.R. No. L-24335November 18, 1967 In Re: Ho Ngo. Ho Ngo vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-24515November 18, 1967 American Insurance Company vs. Compañia Maritima, et al. G.R. No. L-25239November 18, 1967 Emerito S. Calderon vs. Hon. Amador E. Gomez, et al. G.R. No. L-26542November 18, 1967 P.D.P. Transit, Inc., et al. vs. Muñoz (HI) Motors, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-27275November 18, 1967 C & C Commercial Corp. vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority G.R. No. L-23117November 17, 1967 Moises M. Colcol vs. Philippine Bank of Commerce, et al. G.R. No. L-24782November 17, 1967 In Re: Sia Faw. Sia Faw vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-27811November 17, 1967 Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs. Jose Paño, et al. G.R. No. L-20308November 15, 1967 Philippine Products Co., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-20516November 15, 1967 Norberto Romualdez, Jr., et al. vs. Hon. Francisco Arca, et al. G.R. No. L-21424November 15, 1967 Go Bee Bee, et al. vs. Commissioner of Immigration, et al. G.R. No. L-22087November 15, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Mauricio Labis, et al. G.R. No. L-22731November 15, 1967 Silvestra Galarpe de Melgar vs. Adoracion Pagayon, et al. G.R. No. L-24544November 15, 1967 Hartford Fire Insurance Company vs. P.D. Marchessini & Co. (New York), Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-25323November 15, 1967 Royal Insurance Company vs. American Pioneer Line, et al. G.R. No. L-25476November 15, 1967 American Insurance Company vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-25593November 15, 1967 Home Insurance Company vs. United States Lines Co., et al. G.R. No. L-25663November 15, 1967 Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-26794November 15, 1967 Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-28239November 10, 1967 Fortunato Magtaos, Jr., et al. vs. Hon. Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Jr. G.R. No. L-28202November 10, 1967 F.E.F. Remotigue, et al. vs. Sergio Osmeña, Jr. G.R. No. L-28196November 9, 1967 Ramon A. Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-28224November 9, 1967 Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-23000November 4, 1967 Mateo J. Pabulario vs. Hon. Pompeyo L. Palarca The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Tiburcio Balbar Januario T. Seno, et al. vs. Hon. Jose M. Mendoza, et al. Juan de Borja, et al. vs. Hon. Eulogio Mencias, et al. Perfecto Balason vs. Ernesto Balido Federico Fernandez vs. P. Cuerva and Co. Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Emiliano R. Florendo, Sr. vs. Plamasur Buyser Dolores Benedicto, et al. vs. Pantaleon Cañada, et al. Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Victoriano D. Castillo, et al. Delfin Mayormente vs. Robaco Corp., et al. Juan M. Serrano, et al. vs. Muñoz (HI) Motors Inc., et al. In Re: Gregorio Gatchalian. Pedro Reyes Garcia vs. Felipe Gatchalian, et al. In Re: Sincio C. Yu. Sincio C. Yu vs. Republic of the Philippines Honoria Lao, et al. vs. Hon. Eulogio Mencias, et al. Arsenio Reyes vs. Antonio Noblejas, et al. Bartolome Fernandez vs. Roberto Zurbano, et al. Josefina Juana de Dios Ramirez Marcaida vs. Leoncio V. Aglubat In Re: Li Siu Liat. Li Siu Liat vs. Republic of the Philippines Eleuterio Deananeas vs. Ignacio Mangosing, et al. Socorro V. Alejano, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Porferio Inguito vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) vs. Hon. Emiliano C. Tabigne, et al. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jose Alcantara, et al. Investment Planning Corporation of the Philippines vs. Social Security System Segundino Dimitui, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations of Pampanga, et al. Ramiro V. Aragon vs. Hon. Macario Peralta, Jr., et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. Provincial Board of Zamboanga del Norte vs. Doroteo De Guzman, et al. Domestic Insurance Company of the Philippines vs. Barber Line, Macondray & Co., Inc., et al. Domingo Manay vs. A. L. Buenaventura Buenaventura Belamala vs. Marcelino Polinar Fulton Insurance Company vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. In Re: Ho Ngo. Ho Ngo vs. Republic of the Philippines American Insurance Company vs. Compañia Maritima, et al. Emerito S. Calderon vs. Hon. Amador E. Gomez, et al. P.D.P. Transit, Inc., et al. vs. Muñoz (HI) Motors, Inc., et al. C & C Commercial Corp. vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority Moises M. Colcol vs. Philippine Bank of Commerce, et al. In Re: Sia Faw. Sia Faw vs. Republic of the Philippines Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs. Jose Paño, et al. Philippine Products Co., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Norberto Romualdez, Jr., et al. vs. Hon. Francisco Arca, et al. Go Bee Bee, et al. vs. Commissioner of Immigration, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mauricio Labis, et al. Silvestra Galarpe de Melgar vs. Adoracion Pagayon, et al. Hartford Fire Insurance Company vs. P.D. Marchessini & Co. (New York), Inc., et al. Royal Insurance Company vs. American Pioneer Line, et al. American Insurance Company vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Home Insurance Company vs. United States Lines Co., et al. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Fortunato Magtaos, Jr., et al. vs. Hon. Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Jr. F.E.F. Remotigue, et al. vs. Sergio Osmeña, Jr. Ramon A. Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) vs. Commission on Elections Mateo J. Pabulario vs. Hon. Pompeyo L. Palarca The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-20216 and L-20217 November 29, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
TIBURCIO BALBAR,defendant-appellee.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellant.
Pedro M. Belmi for defendant-appellee.
MAKALINTAL,J.:
On August 20, 1960 defendant-appellee Tiburcio Balbar allegedly entered the room where schoolteacher Ester Gonzales, complainant herein, was conducting her classes. Without warning and right after complainant had finished writing on the blackboard, defendant allegedly placed his arms around her and kissed her on the eye. Shocked, complainant instinctively pushed Balbar away and tried to flee. Defendant allegedly brought out his "daga" (a local dagger) and pursued complainant, catching up with her before she was able to get out of the room. Defendant embraced her again, at the same time holding on to his "daga". They both fell to the floor, as a result of which complainant sustained slight physical injuries.
Two informations, one forDirect Assault Upon A Person in Authorityand another forActs of Lasciviousness(Criminal Cases Nos. 823 and 841 respectively) were filed by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal against defendant before the Court of First Instance of Batangas, the latter charge upon written complaint filed by the offended party duly sworn to before the Clerk of Court.
The information for Direct Assault Upon A Person in Authority is hereunder quoted:
The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses Tiburcio Balbar of the crime of Assault upon a Person in Authority, committed as follows:
That on or about the 29th day of August, 1960, in Barrio Camba, Municipality of Lian, Province of Batangas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault Miss Ester Gonzales, a public school teacher in the school building of Lian, duly qualified and appointed as such and while in the performance of her official duties or on the occasion therefor, by then and there pulling his dagger, braced and kissed, and repeatedly trying to embrace and kiss the said teacher, Miss Ester Gonzales. That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of having committed it inside the public school building and during school classes.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The information for Acts of Lasciviousness reads:
At the instance of the offended party in the above-entitled case the undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses TIBURCIO BALBAR of the crime of acts of lasciviousness committed as follows:
That on or about the 29th day of August, 1960, in the Barrio of Cumba, Municipality of Lian, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with the deliberate intent to satisfy his lust, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of lasciviousness on the person of Miss Ester Gonzales, a public school teacher, by then and there placing himself close to her, embracing and kissing her against her will and by means of force, and as a consequence thereof said offended party fell to the floor resulting to her injury which caused her pain and tenderness on the right side of the trunk on the posterior surface of the right arm which injuries may require 3 to 4 days to heal; that the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance that the same was perpetrated inside the public school building and during class hour.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The accused filed separate motions to quash, contending that "(a) with respect to Criminal Case No. 823 for Direct Assault, the information does not charge a sufficient cause of action and that it charges two offenses in a single complaint; and (b) with respect to Criminal Case No. 841 for Acts of Lasciviousness, . . . that the accused would be placed in double jeopardy and that the complaint charges two offenses." On August 16, 1962, over the opposition of the Assistant Provincial Fiscal, the courta quoissued an order quashing the two informations. Said the court:
After reading the informations in both criminal cases, the Court agrees with counsel that the acts committed by the accused as alleged in the two informations constitute one offense.
As regards the motion to quash filed in Criminal Case No. 841, the grounds alleged in support thereof are: (1) that the accused would be placed in double jeopardy; and (2) that the criminal complaint charges two offenses. Without discussing the merits of these grounds above-quoted, the Court believes that the information filed in Criminal Case No. 841 should be dismissed or quashed for the reason that the offense charged therein is already absorbed in the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 823.
Thus, the dispositive portion of the order reads:
WHEREFORE, it is the opinion of this Court that the information in Criminal Case No. 823 which charges only unjust vexation or physical injuries should be quashed for the reason that the same is within the original jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace. And, as to the information in criminal Case No. 841, the same should likewise be quashed on the ground that the acts complained of is already included in Criminal No. 823.
From this order, the Government interposed the present appeal.
Stated differently in the rationale of its order, the courta quoquashed Criminal Case No. 823 on the following ground: That "while the offense is designated as direct assault, nevertheless the main allegations of the information may at most constitute unjust vexation for the reason that an important element of the crime of direct assault is conspicuously absent in the information. This essential element is the knowledge of the accused that the victim is a person in authority. . . .This being the case and since . . . sufficient allegations are contained in the information in question to hold the accused responsible for an offense, the Court believes that the information is sufficient in substance to at least constitute unjust vexation or physical injuries."
Direct assault is committed "by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, . . . shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties or on occasion of such performance." (See Art. 148, Revised Penal Code.)
By express provision of law (Com. Act No. 578, now part of Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1978), "teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities shall be deemed persons in authority, in applying the provisions of Article 148." This special classification is obviously intended to give teachers protection, dignity, and respect while in the performance of their official duties. The lower court, however, dismissed the information on the ground that there is no express allegation in the information that the accused had knowledge that the person attacked was a person in authority. This is clearly erroneous.
Complainant was a teacher. The information sufficiently alleges that the accused knew that fact, since she was in her classroom and engaged in the performance of her duties. He therefore knew that she was a person in authority, as she was so by specific provision of law. It matters not that such knowledge on his part is not expressly alleged, complainant's status as a person in authority being a matter of law and not of fact, ignorance whereof could not excuse non-compliance on his part (Article 3, Civil Code). This article applies to all kinds of domestic laws, whether civil or penal (De Luna vs. Linatoc, 74 Phil. 15) and whether substantive or remedial (Zulueta vs. Zulueta, 1 Phil. 254) for reasons of expediency, policy and necessity.
With respect to the dismissal of the information for Acts of Lasciviousness, we agree with the conclusion reached by the courta quo. Although it is true that the same acts may constitute more than one offense, we are of the opinion, upon an examination of the events which gave rise to the filing of the two aforementioned informations, that the offense of Acts of Lasciviousness does not appear to have been committed at all.
It would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just what conduct makes one amendable to the provisions of article 439 (now article 336) of the Penal Code. What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of each case. It may be quite easy to determine in a particular case that certain acts are lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely difficult in another case to say where the line of demarcation lies between such conduct and the amorous advances of an ardent lover. (U. S. v. Gomez, 30 Phil. 22, 25)
The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. In the instant case, considering the manner, place and time under which the acts complained of were done, even as alleged in the information itself, lewd designs can hardly be attributed to accused. The factual setting,i.e., a schoolroom in the presence of complainant's students and within hearing distance of her co-teachers, rules out a conclusion that the accused was actuated by a lustful design or purpose or that his conduct was lewd or lascivious. It may be that he did embrace the girl and kiss her but, this of itself would not necessarily bring the case within the provision of Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, the order of the courta quoquashing the information for Direct Assault is hereby set aside and this case is remanded to the lower court for trial on the merits; and with respect to the dismissal of the information for Acts of Lasciviousness, the same is hereby affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.
Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ.,concur.
Concepcion, C.J., and Reyes, J.B.L., J.,took no part.