G.R. No. 48396; September 11, 1942
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIX BENITEZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the morning of October 28, 1939, while D’ Artagan Williams, the Division Superintendent of Schools for Negros Occidental, was working in his office, the accused-appellant Felix Benitez, a special agent in the office of the Provincial Governor, gave Williams a fist blow. This blow caused a contusion over the mastoid bone on Williams’s left ear. The assault was prompted by the defendant’s desire to avenge a supposed affront to the Provincial Governor by the Division Superintendent related to the appointment of teachers. The defendant was indicted for assault upon a person in authority, found guilty by the trial court, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional and to pay a fine of P500 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. This judgment is the subject of the appeal.

ISSUE

The sole legal question presented is whether a Division Superintendent of Schools is a “person in authority” within the meaning of Article 148, in relation to Article 152, of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty.
1. On the Status of the Victim: The Court held that a Division Superintendent of Schools is a person in authority. This conclusion is based on Section 917 of the Revised Administrative Code, which grants the superintendent the power of general superintendence over schools and school interests in his division, including the right to appoint municipal school teachers and fix their salaries. As education is a state function, public policy demands adequate protection for those performing this commission.
2. On the Nature of the Crime: The Solicitor-General argued that the defendant was guilty of the complex crime of assault upon a person in authority with physical injury, as the evidence showed the injury required more than 30 days of medical treatment. The Court rejected this argument. The appeal was brought solely on a question of law, preventing the Court from reviewing the evidence. The trial court’s finding that “no injury of serious nature was caused” was therefore conclusive. Since the physical injury was not found to be a grave or less grave felony, no complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code existed.
3. On the Penalty: The crime committed is assault upon a person in authority under Article 148, aggravated by the circumstance that it was committed in the place where the person in authority was discharging his duties (Article 14[5], Revised Penal Code). The prescribed penalty is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum must be within the maximum period of that penalty (4 years, 9 months, and 11 days to 6 years), and the minimum within the range of the penalty next lower (arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period). The trial court’s minimum penalty (6 months and 1 day) was valid, but its maximum (4 years, 2 months, and 1 day) was below the legal range.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment was modified. The accused was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years, 9 months, and 11 days of prision correccional, to pay a fine of P500 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency not exceeding one-third of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs.