Supreme Court Acquits Man of Usurpation for Pretending to Be a Lawyer

-

 Supreme Court Acquits Man of Usurpation for Pretending to Be a Lawyer

High Court rules that a lawyer is not a “person in authority” under criminal law

By ATTY. PHIL JURIS 
June 17, 2025

MANILA, Philippines — In a decision promulgated on August 7, 2024, the Supreme Court acquitted a man of usurpation of authority after he impersonated a lawyer, finding that such impersonation does not qualify as usurpation under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Court reversed the conviction of Pedro Pequero y Nollora for usurpation of authority. Pequero, who introduced himself under the name “Atty. Epafrodito Nollora,” had been found guilty by the lower courts for using a fictitious name, using an illegal alias, and for falsely representing himself as a lawyer.

While his convictions for the use of fictitious name and alias were upheld, the Supreme Court ruled that usurpation of authority was improperly applied in this case.

“A lawyer is not considered a ‘person in authority’ for purposes of Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code,” the Court said in its decision, stressing the need to adhere to the strict statutory meaning of the offense.

The ruling effectively modified Pequero’s sentence to four months of arresto mayor and a corresponding fine, excluding the more serious charge of usurping public authority.

According to case records, Pequero used the alias in official communications and introduced himself in legal matters as an attorney, despite not being registered in the Roll of Attorneys. He was originally convicted by the Municipal Trial Court, with both the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals affirming the decision.

But the Supreme Court took a closer look at what the law considers a “person in authority.” It concluded that while impersonating a lawyer is certainly punishable under other laws — such as those regulating the use of fictitious names and illegal aliases — it does not fall under the scope of usurpation of official functions, which applies only to specific public roles.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed Pequero’s conviction for using a fictitious name and an illegal alias, emphasizing the importance of legal identity and the public interest in preventing misrepresentation. However, the Court reversed his conviction for usurpation of authority, a crime defined under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Court explained that, under the law, usurpation of authority is committed when a person "knowingly and falsely represents himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government," or "under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer" without being lawfully entitled to do so.

Crucially, the Supreme Court clarified that a lawyer is not considered a "person in authority" within the meaning of Article 177. While lawyers are officers of the court, they are not vested with the jurisdiction or official functions of public officers or persons in authority as contemplated by the law. As such, impersonating a lawyer, while certainly punishable under other laws (such as those prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law or the use of fictitious names), does not amount to usurpation of authority or official functions under Article 177.

Legal observers noted that the decision underscores the importance of precise legal definitions when charging individuals with criminal offenses. While the Court did not condone the accused’s conduct, it emphasized that criminal liability must be based on clear statutory grounds.

G.R. No. 263676 was promulgated on August 7, 2024.

Interactive Exercise:

Imagine a scenario where a person impersonates a doctor and issues medical prescriptions. Would the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Pequeroynollora apply? Why or why not? Try to analyze using the elements of usurpation of authority and share your answer for feedback!




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭.

-
Image
  𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭. [G.R. No. 189255 June 17, 2015]  "Aside from the control test, the Supreme Court has also used the economic reality test in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties."  "Under this test, the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the [totality of circumstances] surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties." In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, we observed the need to consider the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control [...] to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.  Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activi...
Read more

SC applied the "economic dependency test" and ruled a Lazada delivery rider as a regular employee.

-
Image
  ANTECEDENTS   In February 2016, Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix Masamayor Molines,5 Harvey Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony Cubacub Nabong (collectively, riders) were hired as riders by Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (Lazada). They were primarily tasked to pick up items from sellers and deliver them to Lazada's warehouse. Each of them signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (Contract) which states that they will be paid P1,200.00 per day as service fee. Respondents maintain that the Contract they signed with petitioners explicitly states that there is no employer-employee relationship between them. SC RULING   When the status of the employment is in dispute, the employer bears the burden to prove that the person whose service it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without fixed terms. SPONSORED   Bar Q&A (2024 Ed.) Law Questions Criminal Commercial Civil Political Labor Taxation Ethi...
Read more

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2023 BAR EXAMS ON CRIMINAL LAW

-
Image
  SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2023 BAR EXAMS ON CRIMINAL LAW BY JUDGE Marlo Campanilla 1. Court has jurisdiction - Extra-territoriality and generality principle ( 8-Hrs video Speed Lecture and regular review lecture )  2. Joey can invoke mistake of fact in relation of death under exceptional circumstance (last-minute video lecture, 8-hrs speed video lecture, pre-week video lecture, regular lecture) 3. Kidnapping with homicide , Ramos and Mercado principle (last-minute video lecture, pre-week video lecture, 8-hrs video speed lecture, regular lecture) 4. Aggravating circumstance of committing a crime in the present of the President; nighttime is not aggravating circumstance (Basic principle) 5. Ado is liable (Basic principle)   6. Pardon will not remit accessory penalty (8-hrs speed video lecture, pre-week video lecture, regular lecture) 7. The duration of reclusion perpetua is 40 years ( Miguel vs. Director of Bureau Prisons, UDK-15368, September 15, 2021 ) 8. Treason is...
Read more