Criminal Law 2: Title III (Arts 143-152) Suggested Question and Answers

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Chapter 2:  CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION 

Art. 144 — Disturbance of Proceedings

Suppose the meeting disturbed is one attended by municipal officials called by the mayor, is the offender liable under Art. 144?

NO. Art. 144 presupposes that the meeting disturbed is that of a legislative body or of provincial, city, or municipal council or board. Here, the offender may be liable of unjust vexation under Art. 287. (People v. Calera, et al.,C.A. 45 O.G. 2576)

Art. 145 — Violation of Parliamentary Immunity

What is the criminal liability, if any, of a police officer who, while Congress was in session, arrested a member thereof for committing a crime punishable by a penalty higher than prision mayor? (2012 BAR)

The police officer incurs no criminal liability because the member of Congress has committed a crime punishable by a penalty higher than prision mayor as such is the exception to the rule.

Chapter 3:  ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS 

Art. 146 — Illegal Assemblies

What is the crime if the gathering is for the commission of a crime punishable under Special Laws?

If the illegal purpose for the gathering is for the commission of a crime punishable under special laws, illegal assembly is not committed. The crime committed would be illegal association.

Art. 147 — Illegal Association

Illegal Assembly vs. Illegal Association

As to the Basis of Liability

Illegal Assembly: The gathering for an illegal purpose which constitutes a crime under the RPC.

Illegal Association: The formation of or organization of an association to engage in an unlawful purpose which is not limited to a violation of the RPC.

As to the Necessity of Actual Meeting

Illegal Assembly: Necessary that there is an actual meeting or assembly.

Illegal Association: Not necessary that there be an actual meeting.

As to the Acts Punished

Illegal Assembly:  Meeting and the attendance at such meeting are the acts punished.

Illegal Association: Act of forming or organizing and membership in the association are the acts punished.

Chapter 4:  ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS 

Art. 148 — Direct Assaults

1. Ways of Committing the Crime of Direct Assault. (2009, 2013, 2015 BAR) Give the Elements. (1993, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002 BAR)

1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition;

    Elements:

    a. Offender employs force or intimidation;

    b. The aim of the offender is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of rebellion or any of the objects of the crime of sedition; and

    c. There is no public uprising.

2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by employing force or by seriously intimidating or by seriously resisting any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on the occasion of such performance.

    Elements:

    1. Offender

        a. Makes an attack,

        b. Employs force,

        c. Makes a serious intimidation, or

        d. Makes a serious resistance;

    2. Person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;

    3. That, at the time of the assault, the person in authority or his agent

        a. Is engaged in the performance of official duties, or

        b. That he is assaulted on occasion of such performance;

    4. The offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties; and

    5. There is no public uprising.

2. As the town president failed to pay their salaries, the defendant, accompanied by four armed men, went to the house of the former and compelled him by force to leave and go to the Presidencia. He kept him there confined until the relatives of the town president had raised enough money to pay what was due them as salaries. What crime did the accused commit?

The facts constitute the crime of Direct Assault. There is no public uprising when the accused, accompanied by armed men, compelled by force the town president to go with them to proceed to the municipal building and detained him there. By reason of detaining the town president, he inflicted upon a public officer an act of hate or revenge. This is one of the objects of sedition, which is essentially what the accused intended to attain. (U.S. v. Dirain, G.R. No. 1948, 05 May 1905)

3. When the policemen effected the arrest of the accused, he approached them and hit one of them in the breast with his hand or fist, at which instant the policeman seized him by the wrist and resistance ceased. Is the accused guilty of direct assault?

NO. When the offended party is an agent of a person in authority, any force or aggression is not sufficient constitute to an assault. To come within the purview of Art. 148, the force used against the agent of a person in authority must be of serious character than that employed in this case. Logic tells us that resistance is impossible without force. (U.S. v. Tabiana, G.R. No. L-11847, 01 Feb. 1918)

4. When the news that his carabao, which earlier destroyed a planted area belonging to another, was seized and taken to the police station reached the accused, he confronted and protested to the municipal president, who was then inspecting the quarantine of the animals. The president, upon hearing his protest, promised to intervene in the matter and to see whether the carabao could be withdrawn. Upon hearing this, the accused insulted the president and gave him a slap on the face. What crime did the accused commit?

The accused committed Direct Assault upon a Person in Authority. When the offended party is a person in authority, it is not necessary to ascertain what force the law requires in order to constitute an assault since the law itself defines concretely this force in providing that it consists in mere laying of hands upon the person. The degree of force employed by the offender against the person in authority is immaterial as the law simply mentions the laying of hands sufficient. (U.S. v. Gumban, G.R. No. L-13658, 09 Nov. 1918)

If the intent of the accused is to embarrass the person in authority, the offense is Direct Assault with Slander by Deed.

5. Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority? (1995, 2000, 2002 BAR)

Persons in authority are those directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are also deemed persons in authority.

Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, are charged with maintenance of public order, the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.

In applying the provisions of Arts. 148 and 151 of the RPC, teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority.

The following are persons in authority:

1. Mayors;

2. Division superintendent of schools;

3. Public and private school teachers;

4. Provincial Fiscal;

5. Judges;

6. Lawyers in actual performance of duties;

7. Sangguniang Bayan member;

8. Barangay Chairman; and

9. Members of the Lupong Tagapamayapa.

Agents of persons in authority includes:

1. Barangay Kagawad;

2. Barangay Tanod;

3. Barangay Councilman; and

4. Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.

6. Lydia and Gemma, were public school teachers. Lydia's son was a student of Gemma. Lydia confronted Gemma after learning from her son that Gemma called him a "sissy" while in class. Lydia slapped Gemma in the cheek and pushed her, thereby causing her to fall and hit a wall divider. As a result of Lydia's violent assault, Gemma suffered a contusion in her "maxillary area", as shown by a medical certificate issued by a doctor, and continued to experience abdominal pains. To what crime, if any, is Lydia liable?

Lydia is liable for Direct Assault upon a Person in Authority. On the day of the commission of the assault, Gemma was engaged in the performance of her official duties, that is, she was busy with paperwork while supervising and looking after the needs of pupils who are taking their recess in the classroom to which she was assigned. Lydia was already angry when she entered the classroom and accused Gemma of calling her son a "sissy". Gemma being a public school teacher, belongs to the class of persons in authority expressly mentioned in Art. 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. (Gelig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, 28 July 2010)

7. Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was held in Barangay Carinias. A, the Barangay Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to start the dance. While A was delivering his speech, B, one of the guests, went to the middle of the dance floor making obscene dance movements, brandishing a knife, and challenging everyone present to a fight. A approached B and admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the advice of A, stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his back to proceed to the microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the ground and died. At the time of the incident A was not armed. What crime was committed? (2000 BAR)

The complex crime of  Direct Assault with Murder was committed. Since A was stabbed at the back when he was not in a position to defend himself nor retaliate, there was Treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such stabbing was murder. The Barangay Captain was in the act of trying to pacify B who was making trouble in the dance hall when he was stabbed to death. He was therefore killed while in the performance of his duties.

In the case of People v. Hecto, the Supreme Court ruled that "as the barangay captain, it was his duty to enforce the laws and ordinances within the barangay. If in the enforcement thereof, he incurs, the enmity of his people who thereafter treacherously slew him, the crime committed is murder with assault upon a person in authority.” (People v. Dollantes, G.R. No. 70639, 30 June 1987)

8. A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X, one of his pupils, because of the latter’s throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out of the classroom crying and proceeded home located at the back of the school. He reported to his parents, Y and Z, what A had done to him, Y and Z immediately proceeded to the school building and because they were running and talking in loud voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B, who followed them as he suspected that an untoward incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside the classroom, X pointed him out to his father, Y, who administered a fist blow on A, causing him to fall down. When Y was about to kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter’s arms. Seeing his father being held by B, X went near and punched B on the face, which caused him to lose his grip on Y. Throughout this incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her husband, and also threatened to slap A.

Security guards of the school arrived, intervened and surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could be investigated in the principal’s office. Before leaving, Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot at him but it was deflected by B.

a. What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of X, Y and Z?

b. Would your answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only? (2001 BAR)

a. X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physical injuries inflicted on B, the Barangay Chairman, to be only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct assault. A Barangay Chairman is a person in authority (Art. 152, RPC) and in this case, was performing his duty of maintaining peace and order when attacked.

Y is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault with Less Serious Physical Injuries for the fist blow on A, the teacher, which caused the latter to fall down. For purposes of the crime in Arts. 148 and 151 of the RPC, a teacher is considered a person in authority, and having been attacked by Y by reason of his performance of official duty, direct assault is committed with the resulting less serious physical injuries complexed.

Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be liable as an Accomplice to the complex of crimes of direct assault with less serious physical injuries committed by Y. Her participation should not be considered as that of a co-principal, since her reactions were only incited by her relationship to X and Y, as the mother of X and the wife of Y.

b. If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying hand on him, being an agent of a person in authority only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and Disobedience under Art. 151, RPC since X, a high school pupil, could not be considered as having acted out of contempt for authority but more of helping his father get free from the grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a person in authority is not ipso facto direct assault, while it would always be direct assault if done to a person in authority in defiance to the latter’s exercise of authority.

9. Ms. L, dean of a duly recognized private school, caught K, one of her students, vandalizing one of the school’s properties. Ms. L called K’s attention and proceeded to scold him, causing a crowd to gather around them. Embarrassed with the situation, K attacked Ms. L by repeatedly punching her on the face. Just as K was about to strike Ms. L again, J, another student, intervened. K then turned his anger on J and also hit him repeatedly, causing him physical injuries. What crime/s did K commit under the Revised Penal Code for his acts against Ms. Land J? Explain. (2019 BAR)

K committed two counts of Direct Assault. The elements of direct assault under Art. 148 of the RPC are:

1. that the offender makes an attack, employs force, makes a serious intimidation or makes a serious resistance;

2. that the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;

3. that at the time of the assault, the person in authority or his agent is engaged in the actual performance of official duties, or that he is assaulted by reason of the past performance of official duties;

4. that the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties; and

5. that there is no public uprising. Art. 152 further provides that teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges, and universities in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority.

Here, all the elements of direct assault are present, where K repeatedly punched Ms. L, a person in authority engaged in the performance of her official duties. K also committed Direct Assault against J. Art. 152 states that any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. Here, while K was attacking Ms. L, K also hit J, an agent of a person in authority who came to the aid of a person in authority. (Gelig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010)

10. Q: Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate, was a detention prisoner in the provincial jail of X Province. Brusco, another member of the syndicate, regularly visited Dancio. Edri, the guard in charge who had been receiving gifts from Brusco everytime he visited Dancio, became friendly with him and became relaxed in the inspection of his belongings during his jail visits. In one of Brusco's visits, he was able to smuggle in a pistol which Dancio used to disarm the guards and destroy the padlock of the main gate of the jail, enabling Dancio to escape. What crime(s) did Dancio, Brusco and Edri commit? Explain. (2015 BAR)

Dancio committed the crime of Direct Assault under Article 148 for disarming the guards with the use of pistol while they are engaged in the performance of their duties. Using a pistol to disarm the guards manifests criminal intention to defy the law and its representative at all hazard. Illegal possession of firearms may also be considered.

It is noteworthy to mention that Dancio cannot be convicted for the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Art. 157 of the RPC because this crime can only be committed by a convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment. By escaping while undergoing preventive imprisonment, he is not evading the service of his sentence.

Edri committed Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner or Evasion through Negligence under Article 224. As the guard in charge, Edri was negligent in relaxing the inspection of the Brusco’s belongings during jail visits allowing him to smuggle a pistol to Dencio, which he subsequently used to escape. By accepting gifts from Brusco, who was part of the syndicate to which Dancio belonged, he is also guilty of Indirect Bribery under Article 211.

Brusco committed Delivery of Prisoner from Jail under Article 156, qualified by his bribery of Edri. Helping a person confined in jail to escape constitutes this crime. “Helping” means furnishing the prisoner with the material means or tools which greatly facilitate his escape; hence, providing a pistol which helped Dencio to escape is delivery of prisoner from jail.

11. Miss Reyes, a lady professor, caught Mariano, one of her students, cheating during an examination. Aside from calling Mariano's attention, she confiscated his examination booklet and sent him out of the room, causing Mariano extreme embarrassment. In class the following day, Mariano approached Miss Reyes and without any warning, slapped her on the face. Mariano would have inflicted grave injuries on Miss Reyes had not Dencio, another student, intervened. Mariano then turned his ire on Dencio and punched him repeatedly, causing him injuries. What crime or crimes, if any, did Mariano commit? (2013 BAR)

Mariano is liable for two counts of Direct Assault. First, when he slapped Miss Reyes, who is a person in authority expressly mentioned in Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, who was in the performance of her duties on the day of the commission of the assault. Second, when he repeatedly punched Dencio, who became an agent of the person in authority when he came to the aid of a person in authority, Miss Reyes. (Celig v. People, GR No. 173150, July 28, 2010).

12. Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of Judge Lorenzo. Armed with a piece of wood commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo on the back, causing the latter’s hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it appeared that Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his imprisonment for three (3) days. 

(a) Is Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why not?

(b) Would your answer be the same if the reason for the attack was that when Judge Lorenzo was still a practicing lawyer ten years ago, he prosecuted Rigoberto and succeeded in sending him to jail for one year? Explain your answer.

a. NO. Rigoberto is not guilty of Direct Assault because Judge Lorenzo has ceased to be a judge when he was attacked. He has retired (71 years old) from his position as a person in authority when he was attacked. Hence, the attack on him cannot be regarded as against a person in authority anymore.

b. YES. Rigorberto is guilty of Direct Assault because the employment of violence was by reason of an actual performance of a duty by the offended party acting as a practicing lawyer. Lawyers are considered persons in authority by virtue of Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, which states that lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority. But the crime having been committed 10 years ago, may have already prescribed because it is punishable by a correctional penalty.

Art. 151 — Resistance and Disobedience to a Person in Authority or his Agents

1. Elements of Resistance and Serious Disobedience. (1990, 2001 BAR)

    1. A person in authority or his agent is Engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a

lawful order to the offender;

    2. The offender Resists or seriously Disobeys such person in authority or his agent; and

    3. That the act of the offender is Not Included in the provisions of Arts. 148, 149, and 150.

2. Elements of Simple Disobedience.

    1. An agent of a person in authority is Engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a

lawful order to the offender;

    2. The offender Disobeys such agent of a person in authority; and

    3. Such disobedience is Not of a serious nature.

3. At around 6:45 AM., the Olongapo Police Station 3 received a report of an altercation on the ground floor of GenX Billiard Hall on Gordon Avenue. At this, PO2 Navarro and SPO3 Merza, who were both in uniform, went to the scene. There, they found two (2) groups of women fighting and pulling each other’s hair out. After stopping the fight, the officers asked the women to go to the police station to file proper complaints.

However, the intoxicated Mallari, one of the women, shouted at them, "Wala kayo pakialam sa akin, hindi ako sasama sa inyo." She then grabbed PO2 Navarro by the collar, slapped his cheek, and kicked his legs several times. The incident was entered in the blotter and Mallari was detained for direct assault.

PO2 Navarro was treated at the James Gordon Memorial Hospital for the minor injuries he got from Mallari. Dr. Ortiz issued him a medical certificate stating that he had sustained swelling on the zygomatic area, or the cheekbone. Is Mallari liable for direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority?

NO. Mallari is liable for Resistance and Disobedience to an Agent of a Person in Authority under Art. 151 of the RPC, not for direct assault.

As clarified in People v. Breis, if the use of physical force against agents of persons in authority is not serious, the offense is not direct assault, but resistance or disobedience. For this crime to be proven, the two (2) key elements must be shown:

"(1) That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender; and (2) That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person or his agent."

In this case, it was established that petitioner grabbed the shirt of PO2 Navarro, then slapped and kicked him several times. Based on the circumstances, petitioner's resistance and use of force are not so serious to be deemed as direct assault. While she exerted force, it is not dangerous, grave, or severe enough to warrant the penalties attached to the crime. (Mallari v.

People, G.R. No. 224679, 12 Feb. 2020)

4. After an unfavorable decision against the defendant in an action filed against him by one Sabino Vayson in an action for recovery of land, the deputy sheriff Cosmo Nonoy, by virtue of a writ, demanded from the defendant the delivery the possession of the said land to Vayson which the former refuse to do so. By reason thereof, the provincial fiscal filed the Information against the defendant for gross disobedience to authorities. Defendant filed a demurrer on the ground that the facts do not constitute a crime, which the court sustained. Is the court correct in doing so?

YES, as the defendant did not disobey any order of the justice of peace. The disobedience contemplated in Art. 151 consists in the failure or refusal of the offender to obey a direct order from the authority or his agent. Here, the order issued is a writ of execution, one that is addressed properly to a competent sheriff and not to the defendant. Absolutely no order whatsoever is made to the latter; the writ or order in question in no wise refers to him. Hence, he could not commit the crime he was charged. (U.S. v. Ramayrat, G.R. No. L-6874, 08 Mar. 1912)

5. Defendant appealed from the decision of the lower court finding him guilty of assault upon agents of authority when he resisted the arrest effected by them. The record shows that the policeman entered the house of the defendant without permission and attempted to arrest the defendant without explaining to him the cause or nature of his presence there. Resisting the arrest, he called to his neighbors for help, “there are some bandits here and they are abusing me." Based on the foregoing, is the defendant guilty of the crime of assault upon agents of authority?

NO. As the defendant’s resistance is attributable to his belief that the policemen were actually bandits. In order to come within the purview of the law, the offender must have knowledge that the person he is assaulting is an agent of or a person in authority. What the law contemplates is the punishment of persons for resistance of the authorities who knew to be one. If the defendant believed that those who had entered his house were, in fact, bandits, he was entirely justified in calling his neighbors and making an attempt to expel them from his premises. (U.S. v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-10678, 17 Aug. 1915)

6. Sydeco, the cook, and waitress in his restaurant were on the way home when they were signaled to stop by police officers who asked him to open the vehicle’s door and alight for a body and vehicle search. When Sydeco instead opened the vehicle window and insisted on a plain view search, one of the policemen, obviously irked by this remark told him that he was drunk, pointing to three empty beer bottles in the trunk of the vehicle. The officers then pulled Sydeco out of the vehicle and brought him to the Ospital ng Maynila where they succeeded in securing a medical certificate under the signature of one Dr. Harvey Balucating depicting Sydeco as positive of alcoholic breath, although no alcohol breath examination was conducted. Sydeco was detained and released only in the afternoon of the following day when he was allowed to undergo actual medical examination where the resulting medical certificate indicated that he has sustained physical injuries but negative for alcohol breath. Is Sydeco criminally liable under Art. 151 of the RPC?

NO. Sydeco’s twin gestures cannot plausibly be considered as resisting a lawful order. There can be no quibble that the police officer and his apprehending team are persons in authority or agents of a person in authority manning a legal checkpoint. But surely petitioner’s act of exercising one’s right against unreasonable searches to be conducted in the middle of the night cannot, in context, be equated to disobedience let alone resisting a lawful order in contemplation of Art. 151 of the RPC. (Sydeco v. People, G.R. No. 202692, 12 Nov. 2014)