G.R. No.

L-3857 October 22, 1951

HILARION SARCEPUEDES, et!t!o"er-#e$$#"t,
%&.
PEOPLE O' (HE PHILIPPINES, re&o")e"t-#e$$ee.
'AC(S*
in the municipality of San Enrique, Negros Occidental, Hilarion Sarcepuedes laid hands on Lucrecia L.
Bustamante, a teacher-nurse, in the school building of the ton by hitting her tice on the face ith his
raincoat and !iolently pushing her to the indo. "he assault too# place because Lucrecia had ordered the
closing of a pathay across her land thru hich Hilarion and his ife to pass in going to and from the
school, closing hich Hilarion deeply resented. $t seems that Hilarion Sarcepuedes sought Lucrecia
Bustamante at the school premises to demand an e%planation. One ord led to another and to the criminal
employment of force already described.
ISSUES*
&. 'hether the offended party is a person in authority
(. 'hether there is direct assault
HELD*
&. )es
*ccording to the +ourt of *ppeals Lucrecia L. Bustamante as, on the day of the commission of the
offense, a teacher-nurse of the San Enrique Elementary ,ublic school, among her official duties being to
gi!e health instruction to the pupils to instruct teachers about ho to gi!e first aid treatment in the school
clinic and to loo# after the sanitary facilities of the school. "he contention must consequently be o!erruled,
since a teacher is e%pressly included in article &-( among the officials deemed to be persons in authority.
(. No
Lucrecia L. Bustamante as not assaulted hile engaged in the performance of her official duties. it
appearing that at the time of the ill-treatment she as about to pierce an earring hole on the ear-lobe of a
school child in the school clinic and that such or# as included in her mission of gi!ing treatment to the
school pupils, the appellate court did not ma#e a mista#e on this particular issue. $t is unquestioned that this
defendant #ne Lucrecia as a teacher-nurse.
E%plaining that the moti!e for the offense as a dispute totally foreign to Lucrecia.s educational labors, the
appellant insists that he may not be punished under *rticle &/0 because the attac# as not 1on occasion1
of Lucrecia.s performance of her official or#. Hoe!er, inasmuch as e ha!e found that Lucrecia as hurt
hile performing her ordinary 2o!ernment tas#s, the moti!e for the aggression becomes immaterial. 3.S.
vs. Baluyot /4 ,hil., 50-6. She as pounced upon 1hile engaged in the performance1 of her official duties,
ithin the meaning of *rticle &/0.