GR 47956; (August, 1942) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47956 ; August 5, 1942
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The prosecution appealed an order from the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan that granted a motion to quash an information. The information charged the defendants with assault upon a person in authority. The lower court quashed the information on the ground that Dr. Jose R. Sison, the President of the 6th Sanitary Division, was not a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. The alleged assault occurred on or about July 12, 1940, while Dr. Sison was engaged in the performance of his official duties, resulting in several physical injuries.
ISSUE
Whether the President of a Sanitary Division is a person in authority or, at least, an agent of a person in authority within the purview of Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the appealed order and REMANDED the case to the court of origin for further proceedings. The Court held that the President of a Sanitary Division is a person in authority or, at least, an agent of such a person. The law vests him with the power to enforce all sanitary laws and regulations within his division and to cause the prosecution of violations thereof. Although subject to the direction of the District Health Officer, this duty is directly imposed upon him by law. Even assuming the primary jurisdiction lies with the District Health Officer, the President, in performing this duty, acts as the latter’s agent. This conclusion follows the precedent set in People vs. Marquez, G.R. No. 41527, which held a sanitary inspector to be an agent of a person in authority.
SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Imperial concurred in the result. He elaborated that the President of a Sanitary Division exercises his own jurisdiction and authority in performing duties mandated by law, such as general sanitary inspections, enforcement of sanitary laws, investigation of violations, abatement of public health nuisances, enforcement of quarantine regulations, and visitation of places with contagious diseases. Therefore, in his view, the official is a person in authority, not merely an agent of one. The fact that Dr. Sison visited the defendants’ laboratory while carrying a letter from the Board of Pharmaceutical Examiners given by the District Health Officer was a mere incidental circumstance that did not detract from his exercise of his own official power and duty.