Republic of the Philippines We find the following facts duly established by the

SUPREME COURT evidence of the prosecution: .

Manila
The Tiburcio Tancinco Memorial Vocational School is
EN BANC run by the national government in the City of
Calbayog, and for the school year 1966-67 its
  principal was Mr. Bartolome B. Calbes, and in his
absence, Mr. Felix U. Tingzon was authorized to act
G.R. No. L-27031 May 31, 1974 as officer-in-charge (Exhibit E). The deceased
Mamerto de Lira was a classroom teacher of
mathematics in said school with daily classes from
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
Monday to Friday, starting at 7:10 o'clock in the
appellee,
morning till about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon with
vs.
vacant periods in-between (Exhibit D) while accused-
LORETO RENEGADO y SENORA, accused-
appellant, Loreto Renegado, was a clerk in the same
appellant.
institution whose duties included the following:
Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo,
1. To type correspondence,
Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and
memorandum, circulars of the Head of
Solicitor Alicia V. Sempio-Diy for plaintiff-appellee.
the school.
Roberto C. Alip as counsel de oficio for accused-
2. To help type test questions of
appellant.
teachers for every periodical test.

3. To help type reports of the schools.

MUÑOZ PALMA, J.:p
4. To help type handout of the
On September 4, 1966, Mamerto de Lira, a teacher of the "Tiburcio teachers.
Tancinco Memorial Vocational School," died at the Calbayog City General
Hospital from a stab wound inflicted upon him a few days before, more
particularly, on August 29, within the premises of the school by Loreto 5. To file and account records of the
Renegado, an employee of the same institution. As a result, the City Fiscal school.
of Calbayog City filed with the local Court of First Instance an Information
against Loreto Renegado for "Murder with assault upon a person in
authority," which, as amended, reads: 6. To mail some reports, prepared
form like Form 137 and mail it, etc.
That on or about the 29th day of (Exhibit F)
August, 1966, at about 9:30 A.M., in
Calbayog City, Philippines, and within A periodical test was scheduled on September 2,
the premises of the Tiburcio Tancinco 1966, and the teachers were instructed to submit their
Vocational School and within the questions for approval and cutting of the stencil for
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court; mimeographing purposes by August 25 and 26. 1

the above-named accused armed with

a sharp-pointed double bladed At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of Friday,
weapon, with decided intent to kill, August 26, 1966, appellant Renegado was in the
with assault upon a person in school canteen and other persons present at the time
authority; the deceased being at the were teachers Natividad Boco, Mrs. Alviola, and Mrs.
time a public school teacher of the Benita Tan, and some students. On that occasion Lira
Tiburcio Vocational School and entered the canteen and seeing Renegado he
therefore a person in authority; and at requested the latter to type the stencil of his test
the time was in the lawful performance questions for the examination set for September 2.
of his duties as such or on the Renegado answered that he had much work in the
occasion of such performance and, principal's office and that typing test questions was
with treachery and evident not among his duties. Lira reminded Renegado of the
premeditation, did then and there instructions of the principal that he could be asked by
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously the teachers to type their test questions especially if
attack, assault and stab with his the teacher concerned had no knowledge of typing,
weapon Mamerto de Lira, who, as a and Lira finished his remark stating: "you can finish
result thereof, sustained stab wound your work if you only will sit down and work." At this
on his abdomen which caused his remark, Renegado became angry and as he stepped
death. (p. 11, original record) out of the canteen he boxed with his fist a cabinet
which belonged to Mrs. Alviola. Seeing the hostile
The Hon. Jesus N. Borromeo who conducted the trial attitude of Renegado, Lira followed the latter outside
of the case found the accused guilty as charged and of the canteen and asked Renegado if he was
pursuant to Articles 148 and 248 of the Revised Penal challenging him. Renegado did not answer but quickly
Code in relation to Article 48 thereof, sentenced him left the place.
2

to "suffer the supreme penalty of death; to indemnify

the heirs of the deceased Mamerto de Lira in the On his way out of the school premises, later that
amount of P6,000.00; and to pay the costs." (p. 94, afternoon, Renegado passed by the guardhouse
ibid) The case is now before Us on automatic review. where he met security guard, Primitivo Velasco, and
Renegado told the latter: "Friend, I will be sad if I
could not kill somebody," and having learned about Lira was brought to the Calbayog City General
the altercation between Renegado and Lira, Velasco Hospital and was attended by Dr. Erlinda Ortiz who
placed his arm around the shoulder of Renegado and performed an operation on him. Dr. Ortiz found that
pacified him with these words: "Loreto, do not do that the weapon of the assailant entered through the right
because that is a little trouble, you might be able to kill lumbar region of the victim and penetrated the right
someone and you will be separated from your lower lobe of the liver. Notwithstanding the medical
family."  Also on that afternoon before leaving the
3
attention given to Lira, the latter died on September 4,
school, Renegado met Basilio Ramirez, another 1966, from "hepatic insufficiency" caused by the stab
employee, to whom he recounted his altercation with wound which perforated the right lower lobe of the
Lira and ended up saying: "I am going to kill him." liver resulting in internal hemorrhage.10

Basilio Ramirez, however, advised Renegade: "Padi,

do not take that to the extent because to kill a person Appellant Renegado asks Us not to believe the
is not good, think of your family, you have many above-given narration of the witnesses for the
children." 4
prosecution and submits instead his own version of
the incident as follows:
In the evening of that Friday, August 26, there was a
dance at the school premises and on that occasion At about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon of Friday,
Renegado was seen cycling around the school August 26, he was in the school canteen for a snack
several times,  and Renegado inquired from security
5
and on that occasion Lira arrived and approached him
guard, Nicomedes Leonor, if Lira was at the dance. with a bunch of papers and told him to type the stencil
Leonor informed Renegado that the teacher was not of his test, questions; he answered that he could not
around and at the same time advised Renegado thus: do the work because he was busy in the principal's
"Choy, do not attend to that small trouble and we office; Lira got mad and pointing his finger at him said:
have families. Have patience because we have "The question with you is that the work that you can
families."  Another teacher, Arturo Querubin, likewise
6
do in a day you finish it in so many days, because you
saw Renegado that evening acting in a suspicious stroll only in the office and keep on sleeping."; scared
manner and sensing the state of mind of Renegado by the aggressive mood of Lira, he went out of the
because of the incident which happened earlier in the canteen, but Lira followed him and, overtaking him
afternoon, Querubin approached Renegado, advised near the door, boxed him on his stomach; he told Lira
him to "calm his temper," and told him "remember, that he was not fighting back, however, Lira angrily
you have plenty of children, please be calm." 7
shook his fingers at him and said: "don't show yourself
to me, I will kill you with maltreatment"; he proceeded
Came Monday morning, August 29, and at around to the office of the principal and informed the latter
9:00 o'clock, Erlinda Rojo, a bookkeeper in the about the incident but the principal advised him not to
school, met accused Renegado in the office of the mind Mr. Lira and to go ahead with his work; later, in
principal. Renegado inquired from Erlinda about his the afternoon he went home; the following morning,
salary loan, and during their conversation, the school Saturday, he was in his house repairing the "pantao"
janitor called the attention of the two to some boys or wash stand and on that occasion spouse Lourdes
quarreling near the school's shop building and and Feling Renegado came to the house and they
Renegado remarked: "stab him"; to those words talked about the incident between him and Lira;
Erlinda replied: "That is the case with you. Your Lourdes Renegado suggested the filing of a complaint
intention is to stab. If that is your attitude, there will be against Lira but he replied he was not taking the
nobody left on earth, they will all die," to which matter seriously and, at any rate, he was resigning
Renegado countered: "So that the bad persons will be from his job; on Monday, August 29, at about 7:30
taken away and eliminated," and after that exchange o'clock in the morning he went to his work in the
of remarks Renegado left the room. 8
school as usual; upon reaching the school, he
proceeded to the room of Miss Rojo to get some
That same morning, past 9:00 o'clock, which was his papers on which he was working, and then he
vacant period, Lira went to the school canteen, seated returned to his room; at about 9:30, he went to the
himself at the counter, and ordered a bottle of "pepsi canteen for a snack and on the way, he was "singing,
cola" from the girls who were then serving, namely, whistling, and tossing a coin in his hand"; before
Venecia Icayan and Lolita Francisco. At about 9:30 reaching the canteen, he saw Lira and Manuel
while Lira was drinking his "pepsi cola" Renegado Cordove conversing and when the two parted, Lira
entered the canteen and seeing Lira with his back went to his room; upon reaching the canteen, he went
towards him, he immediately and without warning to the counter (see Exhibits 3 and 3-A), and while he
stabbed Lira with a knife hitting the latter on the right was there standing, Lira arrived, stood beside him,
lumbar region. The wounded Lira turned around elbowed him, and said in a loud voice: "Ano ka?"; he
holding his abdomen and raised a chair to ward off his turned around to face Lira and the latter banged on
assailant who was poised to stab him for the second the counter the folders he (Lira) was carrying; Lira
time. Renegado tried to reach Lira but he was blocked then placed his right hand inside his pocket, pulled
by Mrs. Tan who shouted "Stop it, Loreto, don't with the other hand a chair and pushed it at him; he
anymore." Because of the intervention of Mrs. Tan became confused and remembered that on Friday
and the screaming of the girls inside the canteen, afternoon Lira threatened to kill him if he (Lira) would
Renegado desisted from continuing with his attack meet him again; after a while he saw Mrs. Tan
and left the canteen.  During that incident, Felix
9 standing before him and heard her say: "Loreto, don't
Tingzon was also in the canteen having a snack with do that"; upon hearing those words, "he regained his
a guest and although he did not actually see the very senses" and only then did, he realize that he had
act of stabbing, he saw however that when Renegado wounded Lira; he became panicky, left the canteen,
entered the canteen Lira was beside the counter and proceeded home, and informed his wife that he had
had his back towards appellant Renegado. a 9 wounded a person; he then called for a tricycle,
looked for a policeman, and surrendered to the intelligence, and malice  because the moral and legal
19

latter.
11
presumption is that freedom and intelligence
constitute the normal condition of a person in the
To corroborate his testimony that in the morning of the absence of evidence to the contrary;  that one of the
20

stabbing incident he was ahead of Lira in the school causes which will overthrow this presumption of
canteen, appellant called to the witness stand Manuel voluntariness and intelligence is insanity in which
Cordove who declared that on Monday morning after event the actor is exempt from criminal liability as
he and Lira had conversed and parted, Lira provided for in Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Revised
proceeded to his (Lira's) office while he went to his Penal Code.
own room and on the way he passed by Renegado
who was then standing by the door of the canteen and In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a
greeted him; after a short while he heard shouts from complete deprivation of intelligence in committing act,
the canteen and he learned that Renegado had that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts
stabbed Lira.  Another witness, Lourdes Renegado,
12
without the least discernment because there is a
testified on the conversation between her and her complete absence of the power to discern, or that
brother-in-law, the herein appellant, on Saturday there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will, mere
morning, and she tried to impress the court that abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude
appellant Renegado had dismissed from his mind his imputability.  The onus probandi rests upon him who
21

altercation with Lira and as a matter of fact on the invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance and
following day, Sunday, she met Renegado who had he must prove it by clear and positive evidence. 22

just come from church and was on his way to attend a

cockfight.  Appellant's wife, Elena de Guia, also took
13
Applying the foregoing basic principles to the herein
the witness stand and declared inter alia that when appellant, his defense perforce must fail.
her husband returned home on Friday afternoon and
narrated to her the occurrence at the canteen she By his testimony appellant wants to convey that for
suggested that a complaint be filed against Lira but one brief moment he was unaware or unconscious of
her husband said: "never mind"; in the evening of that what he was doing, that he "regained his senses"
same day, Friday, her husband invited her to go with when he heard the voice of Mrs. Tan telling him:
him to the school dance, however, she excused "Loreto, don't do that," and only then did he realize
herself because of the children; on Monday morning, that he had wounded Lira. That, to Us, is incredible.
August 29, her husband reported for work at the For it is most unusual for appellant's mind which was
school as usual and before leaving the house he told in a perfect normal state on Monday morning, August
her that he was returning about 9:00 o'clock for his 29, to suddenly turn blank at that particular moment
"merienda"; her husband returned later in the morning when he stabbed Lira. Appellant himself testified that
only to tell her that he had stabbed someone; upon he was acting very sanely that Monday morning, as
hearing the news she cried out: "Oh my God what shown by the fact that he went to the canteen in a
have you done to us?", and he replied: "I would not jovial mood "singing, whistling, and tossing a coin in
have done that had he not bullied me, he purposely his hand"; he saw the persons inside the canteen
did it to me, that is why I was hurt."; after that, her namely Venecia Icayan, Lolita Francisco, Benita Tan,
husband left the house to surrender to the police. 14
Felipe Tingzon and a guest of the latter (all of whom,
except the last one, testified for the prosecution); he
On the basis of the testimony of appellant, his noticed the arrival of Lira who banged his folders on
counsel-de-oficio, Atty. Roberto C. Alip, in his well- the table, elbowed him, and said in a loud "ano ka";
written brief pleads for an acquittal with the argument he saw Lira put his right hand inside his pocket and
that accused should be exempt from criminal with the other hand push a chair towards him; he
liability "because at the precise time that the became "confused" because he remembered that Lira
prosecution claims de Lira was stabbed, accused lost threatened to kill him if he would see him again; at this
his senses and he simply did not know what he was point he "lost his senses" and regained it when he
doing."  To bolster his argument on the mental
15
heard the voice of Mrs. Tan saying: "Loreto, don't do
condition of appellant, defense counsel directs Our that", and he then found out that he had wounded
attention to that portion of the evidence showing that Lira. If appellant was able to recall all those incidents,
sometime in June of 1950 Renegado was "clubbed" We cannot understand why his memory stood still at
on the forehead by Antonio Redema and was treated that very crucial moment when he stabbed Lira to
by Dr. J.P. Rosales for head injuries (Exh. 4-A), and return at the snap of finger as it were, after he
as a result of that incident Redema was charged with accomplished the act of stabbing his victim. His is not
and convicted of "frustrated murder" in the Court of a diseased mind, for there is no evidence whatsoever,
First Instance of Samar on July 21, 1950;  that the
16
expert or otherwise, to show that he is suffering from
head injury of appellant produced "ill-effects" because insanity or from any other mental sickness which
since that particular occurrence appellant would have impaired his memory or his will. The evidence shows
fits of violent temper such as maltreating his wife and and the trial court did find that appellant is a perfectly
children for no reason at all, and for which he would normal being, and that being the case, the
ask forgiveness from his wife because "he lost his presumption is that his normal state of mind on that
head." 17
Monday morning continued and remained throughout
the entire incident..
For purposes of disposing of appellant's defense it
becomes necessary to restate certain basic principles The testimony of appellant's wife, Elena, that her
in criminal law, viz: that a person is criminally liable for husband at times manifests unusual
a felony committed by him;  that a felonious or
18
behaviour, exempli gratia: lashing at his children if the
criminal act (delito doloso) is presumed to have been latter refuses to play with him, tearing off the mosquito
done with deliberate intent, that is, with freedom, net if not properly tied, "executing a judo" on her
person, boxing her, and so on and so forth, is not the incomprehensible, and to a man like the herein
evidence needed to prove a state of insanity. At most appellant who is pictured by his own evidence to be
such testimony shows that appellant Renegado is a one of violent disposition, it was natural for him to
man of violent temper who can be easily provoked to blurt out his outraged feelings and his evil design to
violence for no valid reason at all. Thus in People vs. his two co-employees in the school because the
Cruz, this Court held that breaking glasses and incident with Lira was still fresh in his mind at the time.
smashing dishes are simply demonstrations of an
explosive temper and do not constitute clear and Appellant also contends that the prosecution
satisfactory proof of insanity; they are indications of witnesses are biased and partial. We find that
the passionate nature of the accused, his tendency to contention unjustified. The mere fact that the
violent fits when angry, and inasmuch as the accused witnesses of the People were employees, students,
was not deprived of the consciousness of his acts but and teachers in the school is no reason to consider
was simply obfuscated by the refusal of his wife to live their declarations biased in the absence of
with him, his conviction for parricide was proper.23
satisfactory proof that any of them had personal
motives if his own either to favor the deceased or
Very relevant to the case now before Us in U.S. vs. prejudice the herein appellant. In assessing the
Ramon Hontiveros Carmona, 18 Phil. 62, where the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the trial judge
appellant was accused of serious physical injuries found no sufficient evidence proving hostility towards
committed on his wife, mother-in-law, and sisters-in- the herein appellant or any notable relationship of
law. The accused Hontiveros pleaded insanity as a friendship with the deceased, and We see no valid
defense, and claimed that immediately before the reason for discrediting His Honor's findings in this
incident he had intermittent fever at intervals of a few regard. Time and again this Tribunal has stated that
hours during which he lost consciousness and after the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
he regained consciousness he found himself outside witnesses are not to be disturbed for the trial judge is
of the house and heard voices commanding him to in a better position to appreciate the same, having
surrender his weapon, and he came to know that he seen and heard the witnesses themselves and
had wounded his wife, his mother-in-law and sisters- observed their behaviour and manner of testifying
in-law. The Court sustained the conviction of the during the trial, unless there is a showing that the trial
accused holding: court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
some fact or circumstance of weight and substance
In the absence of proof that the that would have affected the result of the case; in the
defendant had lost his reason or case at bar, there is no such showing.  The rule is so,
24

became demented a few moments because as rightly said, the opportunity to observe the
prior to or during the perpetration of demeanor and appearance of witnesses in many
the crime, it is presumed that he was instances is the very touchstone of credibility. 25

in a normal condition of mind. It is

improper to conclude that he acted As a last issue, appellant claims that the court a
unconsciously in order to relieve him quo erred in holding the appellant guilty of "murder
from responsibility on the ground of with assault upon a person in authority." 26

exceptional mental condition, unless

his insanity and absence of will are The zeal of appellant's counsel-de-oficio in pursuing
proven .... Acts penalized by law are all possible lines of defense so as to secure the
always considered to be voluntary, acquittal of his client or at least to minimize his liability
unless the contrary be shown, and by is truly laudable. However, predicated on the credible
this rule of law Ramon Hontiveros, by and impartial testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
inflicting upon the offended parties the the judgment of the trial court finding the accused
respective wounds, is considered to guilty as charged is to be sustained for the following
have been in a normal, healthy, reasons:
mental condition, and no weight can
be given to the defendant's allegation First, the killing of Mamerto de Lira is qualified by
of insanity and lack of reason, which evident premeditation. The circumstance of evident
would constitute an exceptional premeditation is present because on that very Friday
condition; nor, for lack of evidence, afternoon immediately after the incident at the
can his state of mind be deemed to canteen appellant Renegado, giving vent to his anger,
have been abnormal." (p. 65, told his co-employee, Ramirez, and the security
emphasis supplied) guard, Velasco, that he was going to kill Lira. That
state of mind of appellant was evident once more
The next point raised by the defense is that the when he went to the school dance that same Friday
testimonial evidence of the prosecution comes from evening and was seen cycling around the school
"biased, partial, and highly questionable sources," and premises several times, and he asked another
is not to be believed.
23
security guard, Nicomedes Leonor, if Lira was at the
dance. On the following day, Saturday, appellant met
Appellant claims that it is highly improbable for a Mrs. Benita Tan to whom he confided that had he
person who intends to kill someone to reveal his plan seen Lira the night before he would surely have killed
to others such as what the prosecution witnesses him. And on Monday morning, knowing the time of
Velasco and Ramirez testified that Renegado told Lira for a snack (tsn, Nov. 17, 1966, p. 307), appellant
them on Friday afternoon that he was going to kill armed himself with a knife or some bladed weapon
Lira. It may be true that ordinarily one would keep to which by his own admission on cross-examination
one's self such a hideous plot, but the workings of the was his and which he used for "cutting bond paper"
human mind are at times mysteriously (tsn. ibid, p. 299), proceeded to the canteen at around
9:30 o'clock, and seeing the teacher Lira with his back nor slanderous but more of a reminder to Renegado
towards him, without much ado, stabbed Lira from that if he would sit down and work he could finish all
behind hitting the victim on the right lumbar region. the work that had to be done; as a teacher of the
Appellant's attempt to show that he does not school, Lira had the authority to call the attention of an
remember how the weapon reached the canteen is of employee of the institution to comply with his duties
course futile, preposterous as it is. (tsn. ibid, pp. 299- and to be conscientious and efficient in his work; it
300) There is no doubt that the act of appellant in was Renegado's violent character, as shown by his
bringing with him his knife to the canteen on Monday own evidence, which led him to react angrily to the
morning was the culmination of his plan to avenge remark of Lira and conceive of a plan to attack the
himself on Lira for the remark made by the latter on latter. Under these enumerated facts, We conclude
Friday afternoon. Evident premeditation exists when that the impelling motive for the attack on Mamerto de
sufficient time had elapsed for the actor to reflect and Lira was the performance by the latter of his duties as
allow his conscience to overcome his resolution to kill a teacher.
but he persisted in his plan and carried it into
effect.  Here, appellant Renegado had more or less
27
In Justo vs. Court of Appeals, wherein the offended
sixty-four hours from the Friday incident up to 9:30 party was a district supervisor of the Bureau of Public
o'clock of Monday morning within which to ponder Schools, the Court held that the phraseology "on
over his plan and listen to the advice of his co- occasion of such performance" used in Art. 148 of the
employees and of his own conscience, and such Revised Penal Code signifies "because" or "by
length of time was more than sufficient for him to reason" of the past performance of official duty, even
reflect on his intended revenge. if at the very time of the assault no official duty was
being discharged, inasmuch as the evident purpose of
Second, treachery attended the killing of Lira because the law is to allow public officials and their agents to
the latter, who was unarmed, was stabbed from discharge their official duties without being haunted by
behind, was totally unaware of the coming attack, and the fear of being assaulted or injured by reason
was not in a position to defend himself against it. thereof. 31

There is treachery where the victim who was not

armed was never in a position to defend himself or Inasmuch as the crime committed is murder with
offer resistance, nor to present risk or danger to the assault upon a person in authority and the mitigating
accused when assaulted. 28
circumstance of voluntary surrender is offset by the
aggravating circumstance of treachery, the penalty of
Third, the killing of Lira is complexed with assault DEATH imposed by the trial court is pursuant to
upon a person in authority. A teacher either of a public Article 48 in relation to Articles 148 and 248 of the
or of a duly recognized private school is a person in Revised Penal Code. The court a quo, however, in its
authority under Art. 152 of the Revised Penal Code as decision recommends to the President of the Republic
amended by Commonwealth Act No. 578. 29
the commutation of the death penalty to reclusion
perpetua, and the Solicitor General * concurs with such
recommendation. On the part of the Court, for lack of ten votes for purposes
The defense claims, however, that while it is true that of imposing the death sentence, the penalty next lower in degree, reclusion
Mamerto de Lira was at the time of his death a perpetua, is to be imposed.
teacher of the Tiburcio Memorial Vocational School
run by the national government, he was not stabbed PREMISES CONSIDERED, We affirm the conviction
while in the performance of his duties nor on the of appellant Loreto Renegado for murder with assault
occasion of such performance. According to the on a person in authority and We sentence him to
defense counsel, the motive of the assault is suffer reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of
important to determine whether or not the assault falls the deceased Mamerto de Lira in the sum of twelve
under Art. 148 of the Revised Penal Code;  in the
30
thousand (P12,000.00) pesos 32 and to pay the costs.
instant case it is clear that the underlying motive for Decision modified.
the assault was not that Renegado was asked to type
the test questions of the teacher Lira but that the latter Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando,
made insulting and slanderous remarks to the herein Teehankee, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez
appellant. This contention of the defense is incorrect. and Aquino, JJ., concur.
The assault or attack on Lira was committed on the
occasion of the performance of the duties of the latter
Barredo, J., took no part.
as a teacher because: as narrated in the early part of
this Decision, Lira was scheduled to give a periodical
test on September 2, 1966, and was required to  
submit his, test questions for approval and
mimeographing by August 25 and 26; Lira asked Footnotes
appellant Renegado to prepare the stencil of his
questions inasmuch as he was not versed with typing; 1 Exhibits G & G-1; T.s.n. Tingzon,
appellant was duty bound to type said stencil under October 8, 1966, pp. 168-172.
the memorandum-circular enumerating his duties as a
clerk of the school; appellant refused the request of 2 T.s.n. Boco, Sept. 28, 1966, pp. 3-8;
Lira under pretext that he had much work in the T.s.n. Tan, Sept. 30, 1966, pp. 99-
principal's office and furthermore that typing test 101.
questions for teachers was not among his duties; Lira
reminded Renegado that the principal gave necessary 3 T.s.n. Velasco, Sept. 29, 1966, pp.
instructions for that purpose, and ended up with the 34-35.
remark: "you can finish your work if you only will sit
down and work"; Lira's remark was neither insulting 4 T.s.n. Ramirez, ibid, p. 58.
5 T.s.n. Boco, ibid, p. 8. 24 see People vs. Lumayag, L-19142,
March 31, 1965, 13 SCRA 502, 506;
6 T.s.n. Leonor, ibid, pp. 69-71. People vs. Sampang, et al., L-15843,
March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 531;
7 T.s.n. Querubin, ibid, p. 75. People vs. Orzame, et al., L-17773,
May 19, 1966, 17 SCRA 161; People
vs. Ablaza, L-27352, October 31,
8 T.s.n. Rojo, ibid, pp. 82-85.
1969, 30 SCRA 173; People vs.
Espejo, et al., L-27708, December 19,
9 T.s.n. Tan, Sept. 30, 1966. pp. 102- 1970, 36 SCRA 400.
107: T.s.n. Francisco, Oct. 1, 1966,
pp. 137-143; T.s.n. Icayan, ibid, pp.
25 Connor vs. Connor, 77 A. 2d 697,
151-153.
cited in Francisco's Volume VII, Part II,
on Evidence, Revised Rules of Court,
9a T.s.n. Tingzon, Oct. 8, 1966, p. p. 546, 1973 Ed.
175.
26 appellant's brief, pp. 15-21, pp. 92-
10 Exhibit C: T.s.n. Dr. Ortiz October 98 rollo.
7, 1966, pp. 156-159.
27 People vs. Ompad, et al., L-23513,
11 T.s.n. Renegado, pp. 265-275. January 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 750;
Guevara's Commentaries on the
12 T.s.n. Cordove, October 14, 1966, Revised Penal Code, Fifth Ed., pp. 56-
pp. 212-215. 57; .

13 T.s.n. Lourdes Renegado, ibid, pp. 28 People vs. Vicente, et al., L-26241,
224-227. May 21, 1969, 28 SCRA 247;

14 T.s.n. Elena Renegado, October 29 "Art. 152. Persons in authority and

28, 1966, pp. 244-246. agents of persons in authority — Who
shall be deemed as such.—
15 Appellant's brief, p. 21, p. 98 rollo.
xxx xxx xxx
16 T.s.n. Renegado, Nov. 16, 1966, p.
276; see Exh. 4; In applying the provisions of Articles
one hundred forty-eight and one
17 T.s.n, Elena Renegado, supra. p. hundred fifty-one of this Code,
228-229. teachers, professors and persons
charged with the supervision of public
18 Art. 4, Revised Penal Code. or duly recognized private schools,
colleges and universities, shall be
19 Art. 3, ibid: Guevara's deemed persons in authority. (As
Commentaries Penal Code 5th Ed. pp. amended by Com. Act 578, which took
5-6. effect June 8, 1940)

20 People vs. Sia Teb Ban, 54 Phil. 30 Art. 148. Direct assaults.— Any
52. person or persons who, without a
public uprising, shall empty force or
21 People vs. Formigones, 37 Phil. intimidation for the attainment of any
658, 661, citing from Judge Guillermo of the purposes enumerated in
B. Guevara's Commentaries on the defining the crimes of rebellion and
Revised Penal Code, 4th Edition, pp. sedition, or shall attack, employ force,
42-43, Decision of Supreme Court of or seriously intimidate or resist any
Spain, November 21,1891, 47 Jur. person in authority or any of his
Crim. 413 & Decision of Supreme agents, while engaged in the
Court of Spain, April 20, 1911, 86 Jur. performance of official duties, or on
Crim. 94, 97; see also People vs. occasion of such performance, shall
Cruz, 109 Phil. 288, 292. suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine not
22 People vs. Bascos, 44 Phil. 204; exceeding 1,000 pesos, when the
People vs. Formigones, supra; People assault is committed with a weapon or
vs. Cruz, supra; People vs. Balondo, when the offender is a public officer or
L-27401, October 31, 1969, 30 SCRA employee, or when the offender lays
155. hands upon a person in authority. If
none of these circumstances be
23 supra, p. 293. present, the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period and
23 pp. 10-15, appellant's brief, pp. 87- a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall
92, rollo. be imposed.
31 99 Phil. 453.

32 People vs. Pantoja, L-18793, Oct.

11, 1968, 25 SCRA 468.

* Mr. Justice Antonio P. Barredo was

then the Solicitor General.