G.R. No. L-6820, October 16, 1911
THE UNITED STATES vs. PRUDENCIO GARCIA

FACTS

Prudencio Garcia was charged with the crime of attempt against an authority under Article 249 in relation to Article 250 of the Penal Code. The complaint alleged that he attacked and employed force upon Manuel Serra, the justice of the peace of Tandag, Surigao, while the latter was discharging his official duties. The incident occurred after a court hearing presided by Justice Serra. When the decision was announced, Garcia expressed disagreement, and after an exchange of words where the justice ordered him to leave, Garcia exited but waited for the justice outside. Later, as Justice Serra was walking home, Garcia followed him, confronted him with threatening words (“Now is the good time to get even with you, you dirty justice of the peace”), and assaulted him by striking him with a cane and slapping his face. The trial court’s findings were based on the testimony of the offended justice and corroborated by several witnesses. Garcia admitted to slapping the justice but claimed it was due to provocation unrelated to the court proceedings, a defense he failed to substantiate with evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant, Prudencio Garcia, is guilty of the crime of attempt against an authority as defined and penalized under Article 249 in relation to Article 250 of the Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding Prudencio Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that Garcia’s actions constituted a violation of Article 249, case 2, of the Penal Code, as he attacked a public officer (the justice of the peace) while in the discharge of his official duties. The aggravating circumstance under Article 250(3) that he laid hands upon an officer of the law was properly considered, warranting the imposition of the penalty in its higher degree. The penalty imposed by the lower court four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional, with accessories, a fine of P300, and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency was deemed just and in strict accordance with the law, as it was applied in the medium degree with no aggravating or extenuating circumstances offsetting each other. The defense of provocation was rejected for lack of evidence.