People v. Ramos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Gerardo S. Ramos, was the chief of police, and the offended party, Delfin T. Perez, was the municipal treasurer of Saravia, Occidental Negros. On August 7, 1931, the offended party was seated in front of his office when policeman Julio Nicovera presented a voucher for the appellant's salary from August 1st to 6th, requesting payment. The offended party refused, citing a circular from the auditor and provincial treasurer prohibiting advance salary payments and stating that salaries could only be received mid-month and at the end of the month. The appellant, taking offense at the refusal, followed the offended party on the street as he was going to consult with the municipal president regarding the budget. The appellant accosted the offended party, demanded an explanation, and then struck him on the left shoulder with his fist, causing him to fall into a gutter. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros convicted the accused of assault upon a person in authority and sentenced him to four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional, with accessory penalties, a fine of 625 pesetas, subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, assigning errors related to the lower court's appreciation of evidence and the imposed penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the offended party, a municipal treasurer, was a person in authority or an agent of authority when assaulted. Whether the accused, a public officer, committed assault upon a person in authority or an agent of authority.
Ruling
The sentence appealed from is modified. The appellant is sentenced to three years, six months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional, to pay a fine of P125, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the accessory penalties of the law applicable to the case, and to pay the costs of both instances.
Ratio Decidendi
On the classification of the offended party: The Court held that the offended party, Delfin T. Perez, the municipal treasurer, was an agent of authority, not a person in authority, within the meaning of the Penal Code. The Court reasoned that while the provincial treasurer is a person in authority, the municipal treasurer, being an ex officio deputy of the provincial treasurer, falls under the category of an agent of authority. This deduction was based on the definitions provided in Article 264 of the Penal Code and Sections 2069, 2088, 2169, and 2208 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court emphasized that the information was filed under the Penal Code, which governed the classification of the offended party. On the offense committed and the applicable penalty: The Court found that the acts performed by the appellant constituted the offense defined and penalized by Article 250 in connection with Article 249 of the Penal Code, as the appellant was a public officer at the time of the assault. However, the Court applied Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which mandates the application of a more favorable penalty. Therefore, the penalty of prision correccional in the minimum and medium degrees prescribed in Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code was applied, as it was more favorable to the appellant than the penalty prescribed under the Penal Code for assault upon a person in authority. The Court affirmed that the facts proved left no room for doubt that the appellant assaulted the offended party without justification while the latter was discharging his duties.
Main Doctrine
A municipal treasurer, while performing his duties, is considered an agent of authority, not a person in authority, under the Penal Code. An assault upon an agent of authority by a public officer is penalized under Article 250 in connection with Article 249 of the Penal Code, with the more favorable penalty under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code being applied.