United States v. Gumban
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 13, 1917, Petronilo Gumban, the municipal president of Jaro, Iloilo, was inspecting animal quarantine in the barrio of Pavia. Gregorio Ismana reported that he caught Policarpio Gumban's carabao destroying Magdaleno Suliano's planted area and brought the carabao to the police station. The accused, Nicomedes Gumban, and his brother Epifanio, Policarpio's brothers, arrived and protested the seizure. The municipal president stated Gregorio Ismana was right and promised to intervene. Upon hearing this, Nicomedes Gumban insulted the president and slapped him on the face. Procedural History: The lower court found the defendant guilty of assault upon an agent of authority and sentenced him to 3 years, 4 months, and 8 days of prision correccional, a fine of P600, with subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. The defendant appealed. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment of the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether the act of slapping a municipal president constitutes assault upon an agent of authority or assault upon a person in authority. Whether the penalty imposed by the lower court is excessive.
Ruling
The Supreme Court declared the defendant guilty of assault upon a person in authority under Article 249, paragraph 2, in connection with Article 250, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code. The Court modified the judgment, sentencing the accused to 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision correccional, a fine of 625 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. However, considering the circumstances, the Court recommended a partial pardon to reduce the penalty to 10 months of prision correccional.
Ratio Decidendi
On the classification of the crime and the elements thereof: The Court held that the offended party, being a municipal president, was a person in authority, not a mere agent of authority. Therefore, the fiscal's designation of the crime as assault upon an agent of authority was erroneous. However, this misqualification did not affect the information because the facts stated therein were controlling. The Court clarified that the crime of assault upon a person in authority, as defined in Article 249, paragraph 2, in connection with Article 250, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code, requires an assault upon a person in authority by 'laying hands' upon him. This act of laying hands, such as giving a slap, is sufficient to constitute the crime, irrespective of the degree of force employed, as the law itself concretely defines the force required. The Court distinguished this from assault upon agents of authority where the element of force employed is more critical and subject to case-to-case circumstances, citing United States vs. Tabiana and Canillas and United States vs. Cipriano Agustin. The Court emphasized that the law does not make a distinction regarding the force when it comes to 'laying hands' upon a person in authority, and it would be unjust to make such a distinction when the law does not. On the penalty imposed: The Court found that the penalty imposed by the lower court, based on the strict application of the cited provisions, was evidently excessive. Considering the special circumstances of the case, the degree of malice, and the damage caused, the Court, in accordance with Article 2 of the Penal Code, recommended a partial pardon to His Excellency, the Governor-General, to reduce the penalty to 10 months of prision correccional.
Main Doctrine
The act of slapping a person in authority, while performing official duties, constitutes assault upon a person in authority under Article 249, paragraph 2, in connection with Article 250, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code, as the law specifically defines the force required as 'laying hands' without distinction as to the degree of force.