GR L 20216; (November, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20216 and L-20217 November 29, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TIBURCIO BALBAR, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On August 20, 1960, in a school building in Lian, Batangas, defendant Tiburcio Balbar allegedly entered the classroom of public school teacher Ester Gonzales while she was conducting classes. After she finished writing on the blackboard, he allegedly placed his arms around her and kissed her on the eye. When she pushed him away and tried to flee, he allegedly pursued her with a “daga” (dagger), caught her, embraced her again while holding the dagger, and they both fell to the floor, causing her slight physical injuries. Two separate informations were filed against Balbar: one for Direct Assault Upon A Person in Authority (Criminal Case No. 823) and another for Acts of Lasciviousness (Criminal Case No. 841). The accused filed motions to quash both informations. The trial court granted the motions and quashed both informations, reasoning that the acts alleged constituted only one offense, that the information for Direct Assault at most constituted unjust vexation or physical injuries within the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace, and that the offense in the Acts of Lasciviousness case was absorbed in the Direct Assault case. The Government appealed this order.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in quashing the information for Direct Assault Upon A Person in Authority.
2. Whether the trial court erred in quashing the information for Acts of Lasciviousness.
RULING
1. Yes, the trial court erred in quashing the information for Direct Assault. The information sufficiently alleged the crime. Direct assault is committed by attacking, employing force, or seriously intimidating or resisting a person in authority while engaged in official duties. By law (Com. Act No. 578, now part of Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code), teachers are deemed persons in authority. The information alleged the victim was a public school teacher performing her duties. The accused’s knowledge of her status is implied from the allegation that she was in her classroom engaged in her duties; such knowledge need not be expressly alleged as her status is a matter of law, and ignorance of the law excuses no one. The order quashing this information is set aside, and the case is remanded for trial.
2. No, the trial court did not err in quashing the information for Acts of Lasciviousness. The Court agreed with its dismissal. While the same acts can constitute more than one offense, the factual circumstances alleged—the acts occurring in a schoolroom in the presence of students and within hearing of co-teachers—rule out a conclusion that the accused was actuated by lustful design or that his conduct was lewd or lascivious. Embracing and kissing, by themselves, do not necessarily constitute acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. The dismissal of this information is affirmed.