Facts:

When Mayor Villareal of Samar departed for Manila on official business early in the morning of September 22, 1952, he designated Hilvano, councilor, to discharge the duties of his office. Later, during office hours on that same day, Vice-Mayor 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 (Latorre) 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 the 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 was prosecuted and after trial was convicted of usurpation of authority or official functions. He appealed in due time, contending that he committed no usurpation of authority because he was a councilor, an official of the Government, and that such crime may only be committed by private individuals.


Issue:

May the crime of usurpation of authority or official functions be committed by a public officer?


Held:

Yes. There is actually no reason to restrict the operation of Article 177 to private individuals. For one thing it applies to “any person”; and where the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.

There is no excuse for defendant-appellant. 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. (People vs. Hilvano, G.R. No. L-8583, July 31, 1956)