July 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > July 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-8583. July 31, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO HILVANO, Defendant-Appellant.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-8583.  July 31, 1956.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO HILVANO, Defendant-Appellant.

 

D E C I S I O N

BENGZON, J.:

When Mayor Fidencio Latorre of Villareal, Samar, departed for Manila on official business early in the morning of September 22, 1952, he designated the herein Defendant Francisco Hilvano, councilor, to discharge the duties of his office. Later, during office hours on that same day, Vice-Mayor Juan Latorre went to the municipal building; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand having found Hilvano acting in the place of the Mayor, he served written notices to the corresponding municipal officers, including Hilvano, that he (Juan Latorre) as Vice-Mayor was assuming the duties of the absent mayor. However, Hilvano refused to yield, arguing that he had been designated by the Mayor. Whereupon the Vice-Mayor sent a telegram to the Executive Secretary informing the latter of the controversy. And the said Secretary replied by letter, that under sec. 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code it was the Vice-Mayor who should discharge the duties of the Mayor during the latter’s temporary absence. Shown this official pronouncement, Hilvano still refused to surrender the position. Again the Vice-Mayor sought the opinion of the Provincial Fiscal, who by letter (Exhibit D), replied that the Vice-Mayor had the right to the office. Notwithstanding such opinion which was exhibited to him — Hilvano declined to vacate the post, which he held for about a month, appointing some policemen, solemnizing marriages and collecting the corresponding salary for mayor.

Wherefore Francisco Hilvano was prosecuted — and after trial — was convicted of usurpation of public authority under Republic Act No. 10. He appealed in due time. The Solicitor-General and Appellant’s counsel agree that the penal provision applicable to the case is Republic Act No. 379 which amended Art. 177 of the Revised Penal Code to read as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“Usurpation of authority or official functions. — Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.”

It is contended however for the Appellant that he committed no usurpation of authority because he was a councilor, an official of the Government, and that such crime may only be committed by private individuals. He cited a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of 1880 interpreting the corresponding article of the Spanish Penal Code, which is the origin of our own Penal Code. But it appears that in subsequent decisions the same court convicted of the offense of usurpation certain officials who without proper authority discharged the functions of other officials, e.g., a municipal judge (Jan. 22, 1890) and a vice-mayor (teniente de alcalde) who discharged the functions of the alcalde. (Oct. 15, 1891). See Viada 5th Ed. Vol. IV pp. 227-230. 1

There is actually no reason to restrict the operation of Article 177 to private individuals. For one thing it applies to “any person”; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand where the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish. Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s assumption that Articles 238-241 of the Revised Penal Code penalize all kinds of usurption of official functions by public officers, said articles merely punish interference by officers of one of the three departments of government (legislative, executive and judicial) with the functions of officials of another department. Said articles do not cover usurption of one officer or employee of a given department of the powers of another officer in the same department. For instance, the exercise by a bureau employee of the powers of his director.

There is no excuse for Defendant-Appellant. In the beginning he might have pleaded good faith, invoking the designation by the Mayor; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut after he had been shown the letter of the Executive Secretary and the opinion of the provincial fiscal, he had no right thereafter stubbornly to stick to the position. He was rightfully convicted. But the penalty imposed on him should be modified, in accordance with the recommendation of the Solicitor General. He is sentenced to an indeterminate term of 4 months of arresto mayor to two years of prision correccional. So modified, the appealed judgment is affirmed with costs against Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

 

Endnote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

  1.  See also decision of Feb. 23 1893, Cuello Calon, Derecho Penal, 6th Ed. Vol. II page 243, note.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.] EMERENCIANA M. VDA. DE MEDINA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, ET AL., Defendants. GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9575. July 17, 1956.] PEDRO CEREZO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE EMANUEL. M. MU�OZ, Judge Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and PEDRO S. SISON, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-6025-26. July 18, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-6990. July 20, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. KAMAD ARINSO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-7872-73. July 20, 1956.] IN RE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF RAYMUNDO PE and FORTUNATO PE. RAYMUNDO PE and FORTUNATO PE, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8750. July 20, 1956.] NATIONAL UNION OF PRINTING WORKERS, Petitioners, vs. ENCLOSED WITH PAY THE ASIA PRINTING AND/OR LU MING, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7578. July 24, 1956.] CRISPULO MALICSE, Petitioner, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8753. July 24, 1956.] MRS. CARIDAD DE LA CRUZ DE BERONILLA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SEGUNDO M. MARTINEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and MELCHOR BERONILLA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8878. July 24, 1956.] FELIPE B. OLLADA, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, UNDER-SECRETARY OF FINANCE, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, VICENTE I. CRUZ, SABINA R. SORIANO, NEW WORLD PRINTING PRESS and YAM NAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8604. July 25, 1956.] CANDIDO PANCHO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MANUEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-5079. July 31, 1956.] J. M. TUASON & Co., INC., represented by its managing partner THE GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GERONIMO SANTIAGO, ELENO SANTIAGO PABLO SANTIAGO, CECILIO SANTIAGO and CONSTANTINO SANTIAGO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-6204. July 31, 1956.] CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7834. July 31, 1956.] SEVERINO D. VALENCIA and CATALINA S. L. VALENCIA, Petitioners, vs. ROMAN LEONCIO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7983. July 31, 1956.] PETRA BELTRAN, ET ALS., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. ARSENIO ESCUDERO, ET ALS., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8157. July 31, 1956.] LIM HU, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-8475. July 31, 1956.] RICARDO Y. SUNGA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VlCTORlANO ALVlAR, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8583. July 31, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO HILVANO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8627. July 31, 1956.] VITALIANO ROBLES, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. CANDIDA SAN JOSE, ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8657. July 31, 1956.] ERASMO ALVAREZ and MARCIANO PARANADA, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE LUCAS LACSON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, CASIANO A. LADIORAY and SERAPIO ARIMBUANGA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8761. July 31, 1956.] INSULAR SAW MILL, INC., Petitioner, vs. CHARLIE HOGAN and DEE C. TAM (As partners in the unregistered partnership Charlie Hogan and Co., doing business under the name and style of �Ganie Enterprises�), Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8943. July 31, 1956.] JOSE MIRANDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MALATE GARAGE & TAXICAB, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8964. July 31, 1956.] JUAN EDADES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. SEVERINO EDADES, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9037. July 31, 1956.] MARIANO B. VILLANUEVA and CONSUELO PAPA-VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE PRIMITIVO GONZALES, Judge of the Court of First Instance, and Provincial Fiscal MARIANO B. BENEDICTO, both of Cavite, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9252. July 31, 1956.] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. ERNESTO P. HERNANDO, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9284. July 31, 1956.] TERESA FELIX VDA. DE ROSARIO, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF CAMILING, TARLAC, MELANIO ROSARIO and MARIA INOVEJAS, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9317. July 31, 1956.] AGAPITO CRUZ CORREA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HERMOGENES PASCUAL, Defendant. JUAN LUCIANO and ARSENIA DE LEON, movants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9572. July 31, 1956.] JOAQUIN GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-9667. July 31, 1956.] LUIS MA. ARANETA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, as judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI and EMMA BENITEZ ARANETA, Respondents.