People v Hilvano
GR No. L-8583, 31 July 1956
Bengson, J:
FACTS:
When Mayor Fidencio Latorre of Villareal, Samar, departed for Manila on official business early in the morning of September 22, 1952, he designated the herein Defendant Francisco Hilvano, councilor, to discharge the duties of his office. Later, during office hours on that same day, Vice-Mayor Juan Latorre went to the municipal building; and having found Hilvano acting in the place of the Mayor, he served written notices to the corresponding municipal officers, including Hilvano, that he, as Vice-Mayor was assuming the duties of the absent mayor. However, Hilvano refused to yield, arguing that he had been designated by the Mayor. Whereupon, the Vice-Mayor sent a telegram to the Executive Secretary informing the latter of the controversy. And said Secretary replied by letter, that under sec. 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code it was the Vice-Mayor who should discharge the duties of the Mayor during the latter’s temporary absence. Shown this official pronouncement, Hilvano still refused to surrender the position. Again the Vice-Mayor sought the opinion of the Provincial Fiscal, who by letter, replied that the Vice-Mayor had the right to the office. Notwithstanding such opinion which was exhibited to him — Hilvano declined to vacate the post, which he held for about a month, appointing some policemen, solemnizing marriages and collecting the corresponding salary for mayor.
Hilvano argued that he did not commit usurpation for he was a councillor and that such crime may only be committed by private individuals.
ISSUE:
W/N the defendant is guilty of usurpation of official function under Art. 177 of the RPC.
HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that there is no reason to restrict the operation of Art. 177 to private individuals. The law expressly provides that it applies to “any person.” Where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. Furthermore, contrary to appellant’s assumption that Arts. 238-241 of the RPC penalize all kinds of usurpation of official function by public officers, said articles merely punish interference by officers of one of the three departments of the government. Said articles do not cover usurption of one officer or employee of a given department of the powers of another officer in the same department.
In the beginning he might have pleaded good faith, invoking the designation by the Mayor; but after he had been shown the letter of the Executive Secretary and the opinion of the provincial fiscal, he had no right thereafter stubbornly to stick to the position. He was rightfully convicted.
