PAQUITO SALABSALO, JOSE CARIDAD AND SEVERINO CABALUNA, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. FRANCISCO ANGCOY AND ATTY. CIPRIANO CABALUNA, JR., AS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF ALIMODIAN, I…

The above petitioners have appealed from the order of Hon. Jose R. Querubin, Judge dismissing motu proprio
their request for mandamus to compel the respondent justice of the
peace Cipriano Cabaluna, Jr., to try on the merits Criminal Case No.
278 of his court in Alimodian, Iloilo.

In the said criminal
case Paquito Salabsalo, et al., were charged with assault upon an agent
of persons in authority, for having laid their hands upon a barrio
lieutenant^[1] while the latter was performing his duties as such.

Believing he had no jurisdiction over the crime, the said justice of
the peace declined to hear the accusation on the merits. Whereupon, the
defendants Paquito Salabsalo, et al. applied to the court of first
instance for mandamus, but in vain. The judge, as stated, dismissed the
petition, overruling their contention that, as no intent to kill had
been charged, the assault constituted an offense within the
jurisdiction of the justice of the peace pursuant to sec. 87 par. C,
sub-par. 2 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.^[2]
His Honor said “The assault contemplated in the Judiciary Act cited by
counsel refers only to assaults with physical injuries, and not assault
upon an agent of persons in authority as provided for by Art. 148 of
the Revised Penal Code.”

Therein lies the issue in this
appeal: does a justice of the peace have jurisdiction over the offense
of assault upon an agent of persons in authority, where no intent to
kill is charged or evident?

The statute invoked by
appellants bestows on j.p. courts original jurisdiction over “assaults
where the intent to kill is not charged or evident upon the trial.”

We think, His Honor read the section correctly. The words “where the
intent to kill” qualifying “assault” give a fair indication that
“assault” connotes physical injuries or maltreatment, or crimes against
the person. Whereas assault upon an agent of persons in authority falls
within the list of crimes against public order, (under Title III of the
Revised Penal Code).

Besides, this jurisdiction of inferior
courts over “assaults” with no intent to kill was first given to the
municipal court in the City of Manila, and the law was then translated
as “aggression”^[3] whereas “atentado”^[4] was then the word for “assault” or “attempt” against persons in authority.

Bearing in mind further, that an assault with intent to kill, punished with prision correccional^[5] has been withheld from the j.p. courts, and that assault upon an agent of persons in authority is also punished with prision correccional
(Art. 148, Revised Penal Code), we are persuaded to hold the
Legislature entertained no idea to include the latter crime within the
cognizance of j.p. courts.

We express identical views in Villanueva vs. Ortiz^[6] decided during this Court’s summer session in Baguio City.

Accordingly, the appealed order is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Paras, C. J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Padilla and Endencia, JJ., took no part.

---

^[1]
After June 22, 1957 a barrio lieutenant is considered person in
authority (Republic Act 1978)—not mere agent. Crime occurred April 28,
1957.

^[2] Republic Act 296.

^[3] Codigo Administrativo (1916).

[4] Art. 263, Codigo Penal.

^[5] It is, at least, attempted homicide.

^[6] Supra, p. 493.