TITLE THREE: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

CHAPTER 4: ASSAULT UPON, RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS

Title: Docket No. G.R. No. L-8611

Justo v. Court of Appeals Date: June 28, 1956

Ponente: REYES, J.B.L., J:

SEVERINO P. JUSTO, petitioner THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.

Severino P. Justo appeals a guilty verdict for assaulting a person in authority during a heated discussion
about a job vacancy, but the court affirms the decision, stating that the attack was motivated by the
performance of official duty.

Facts:

Severino P. Justo (petitioner) was charged with the crime of assault upon a person in authority. The
complainant, Nemesio B. de la Cuesta, was a district supervisor of the Bureau of Public Schools in Sarrat,
Ilocos Norte. On October 16, 1950, De la Cuesta went to the division office in Laoag, Ilocos Norte to
revise the plantilla of his district. While in the office, Justo approached De la Cuesta and asked about the
possibility of accommodating a certain Miss Racela as a teacher in De la Cuesta's district. When De la
Cuesta informed Justo that there was no vacancy except for the position of a shop teacher, Justo became
angry and challenged De la Cuesta to go outside. Justo then grabbed a lead paper weight from the table
and left the office, followed by De la Cuesta. In front of a clerk in the division office, De la Cuesta asked
Justo to put down the paper weight, but Justo instead grabbed De la Cuesta's collar and tore his shirt. De
la Cuesta managed to separate them, but not before he had boxed Justo several times.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime of assault upon a person in authority was committed even if the complainant
was not actually performing his duties at the time of the assault.

Whether or not there was unlawful aggression on the part of the petitioner due to a mutual agreement
to fight.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding the petitioner guilty of the
crime of assault upon a person in authority.

Ratio:

The character of a person in authority is not assumed or laid off at will, but attaches to a public official
until he ceases to be in office. Even if the complainant was not actually performing his duties at the time
of the assault, the crime of assault upon a person in authority can still exist as long as the impelling

University of Manila | Criminal Law 2 | Atty. Jessie Bautista | Natanawan, Francis Ken D.
motive of the attack is the performance of official duty. This is evident from the language of Article 148
of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes attacks upon persons in authority "while engaged in the
performance of official duties or on occasion of such performance". The phrase "on occasion" signifies
that the attack is motivated by the past performance of official duty, even if no official duty is being
discharged at the time of the assault. (People vs. Garcia, 20 Phil., 358; Sent. of the Tribunal Supremo of
Spain, 24 November 1874; 26 December 1877; 13 June 1882 and 31 December 1896).

In this case, there was a mutual agreement to fight, but an aggression ahead of the stipulated time and
place would still be unlawful. To hold otherwise would be to sanction unexpected assaults contrary to
loyalty and fair play. The acceptance of the challenge to fight did not place the offended party under the
burden of preparing to meet an assault at any time before reaching the agreed place for the encounter.
Any aggression before reaching the agreed place was illegal. The complainant, De la Cuesta, was merely
on his way out to fight the petitioner when the latter violently laid hands on him. Therefore, the
petitioner's aggression was unlawful.

University of Manila | Criminal Law 2 | Atty. Jessie Bautista | Natanawan, Francis Ken D.