GR L 15122; (May, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15122; May 31, 1960
PAQUITO SALABSALO, JOSE CARIDAD and SEVERINO CABALUNA, petitioners-appellants, vs. FRANCISCO ANGKOY and ATTY. CIPRIANO CABALUNA, JR., as Justice of the Peace of Alimodian, Iloilo, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioners Paquito Salabsalo, Jose Caridad, and Severino Cabaluna were charged in Criminal Case No. 278 before the Justice of the Peace Court of Alimodian, Iloilo, with the crime of assault upon an agent of a person in authority (specifically, a barrio lieutenant) while the latter was performing his duties. The incident occurred on April 28, 1957. The respondent Justice of the Peace, Cipriano Cabaluna, Jr., believing he had no jurisdiction over the offense, declined to hear the case on its merits. Consequently, the petitioners filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance to compel the justice of the peace to try the case. The judge dismissed the petition motu proprio, rejecting the petitioners’ contention that, since no intent to kill was charged, the assault fell within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace under Section 87(c), sub-paragraph 2 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (Republic Act No. 296).
ISSUE
Does a justice of the peace court have original jurisdiction over the offense of assault upon an agent of a person in authority under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code, where no intent to kill is charged or evident?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Court held that the jurisdiction conferred upon justice of the peace courts by Section 87(c)(2) of the Judiciary Act over “assaults where the intent to kill is not charged or evident upon the trial” refers only to assaults constituting crimes against persons, such as those involving physical injuries or maltreatment. The offense of assault upon an agent of a person in authority (Article 148, Revised Penal Code) is a crime against public order (Title III of the Revised Penal Code), not a simple assault. The qualifying phrase “where the intent to kill is not charged or evident” indicates that the term “assault” in the Judiciary Act connotes crimes against the person. Furthermore, the Court noted that assault upon an agent of a person in authority is punishable by prision correccional, a penalty from which jurisdiction has been withheld from justice of the peace courts, similar to assault with intent to kill. Historical context (the use of “aggression” in the Administrative Code for Manila versus “atentado” in the Spanish Penal Code for assaults on authorities) and the Court’s prior ruling in Villanueva vs. Ortiz supported this interpretation. Therefore, the justice of the peace correctly declined jurisdiction. Costs were imposed on the appellants.