G.R. No. L-138; September 30, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORO YBOA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

During the first month following the liberation of Samar, the United States Army established Philippine Civil Affairs Unit (PCAU) No. 28 in Catbalogan, with Captain Myden as an officer. This unit assisted the Civil Government in various matters such as relief supplies and peace and order, but it remained a unit of the United States Army, not a branch or agency of the Commonwealth or local governments. Its officers and personnel, including civilian employee Jose Claudio (the offended party), were under the exclusive control of the U.S. Army. Claudio was appointed cashier and was authorized to enforce PCAU rules. In early April 1945, an anomaly was detected involving appellants Floro Yboa and his brother Vicente, who were purchasing rations at two different PCAU stores under one ration card, violating PCAU rules. Appellant Antonio Yboa (brother of Floro) was informed by his wife that Claudio was circulating talk about Floro’s irregularities. On April 28, 1945, while Claudio was working at the PCAU office, he was asked to see Floro Yboa outside. When Claudio went out, Floro questioned him, and Antonio Yboa, without warning, struck Claudio with his fist, causing him to fall and suffer a contusion requiring two days of medical attendance. Antonio had been waiting nearby with his knuckles wrapped in a handkerchief and had previously decided to assault Claudio upon hearing the rumors. The trial court convicted both appellants of assault upon an agent of a person in authority.

ISSUE

Whether Jose Claudio, a civilian employee of the U.S. Army’s PCAU, was an “agent of a person in authority” under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code at the time of the assault.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that Jose Claudio was not an agent of a person in authority. Captain Myden of PCAU No. 28 was an officer of the United States Army and, therefore, of the U.S. government, not a “person in authority” under Philippine law, as such terms refer only to functionaries of the Civil Government of the Philippines. Since Captain Myden was not a person in authority, his subordinate Claudio could not be considered an agent of a person in authority. Consequently, the crime committed was not assault upon an agent of a person in authority. The Court acquitted appellant Floro Yboa due to lack of evidence of his participation in the assault. As to appellant Antonio Yboa, the evidence established his guilt for slight physical injuries under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment, acquitting Floro Yboa and convicting Antonio Yboa of slight physical injuries, sentencing him to thirty (30) days of arresto menor.