(52) Enrile vs.
Salazar essence of rebellion has been lost and that it is being used by a
GR No. 92163
June 5, 1990
Article 134-A
Facts:
In February 1990, Sen Enrile was arrested. He was charged
together with Mr. & Mrs. Panlilio, and Honasan for the crime of
rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder which
allegedly occurred during their failed coup attempt. Enrile was then
brought to Camp Karingal. Enrile later filed for the habeas corpus
alleging that the crime being charged against him is nonexistent.
That he was charged with a criminal offense in an information for
which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation
was conducted, hence was denied due process; denied his right to
bail; and arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued
without the judge who issued it first having personally determined
the existence of probable cause.
ISSUE:
Whether or the court should affirm the Hernandez ruling.
RULING:
Enrile filed for habeas corpus because he was denied bail
although ordinarily a charge of rebellion would entitle one for bail.
The crime of rebellion charged against him however is complexed
with murder and multiple frustrated murders the intention of the
prosecution was to make rebellion in its most serious form so as to
make the penalty thereof in the maximum. The SC ruled that there
is no such crime as Rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
murder.
What Enrile can be charged of would be Simple Rebellion
because other crimes such as murder or all those that may be
necessary to the commission of rebellion is absorbed hence he
should be entitiled for bail. The SC however noted that a petition
for habeas corpus was not the proper remedy so as to avail of bail.
The proper step that should have been taken was for Enrile to file
a petition to be admitted for bail. He should have exhausted all
other efforts before petitioning for habeas corpus. The Hernandez
ruling is still valid. All other crimes committed in carrying out
rebellion are deemed absorbed. The SC noted, however, that there
may be a need to modify the rebellion law. Considering that the
lot of opportunists to attempt to grab power.
(53) People vs. Pimentel
GR No. 1002100
April 1, 1998
Article 134-A: Consequences of the political nature of
rebellion
Facts:
Antonio Tujan was charged with Subversion under RA No.
1700, a warrant of arrest was issued but remained unserved
because he could not be found. After 7 years, he was arrested and
an unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver and 6 round of
ammunition were found in his possession. He was then charged of
another criminal offense for illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition in furtherance of Subversion under PD No. 1866.
Antonio Tujan filed a motion to quash on the ground that he has
been previously in jeopardy and that the present case is a twin
prosecution of the earlier subversion case and, therefore, he is
entitled to invoke the constitutional protection against double
jeopardy.
TC & CA:
Granted the motion to quash
W/N private respondent was placed in jeopardy with the
filing of the second information for Illegal Possession of
Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion
SC:
Requisites to obtained the protection on double jeopardy
The criminal action must have obtained: (a) valid complaint or
information, (b) a competent court, (c) defendant had pleaded to
the charge, (d) the defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the
case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without
his express consent. --- The issue of double jeopardy had not
arisen yet. Private respondent has not even been arraigned in the
first criminal action for subversion. Besides, the two criminal
charges against private respondent are not the same offense as
required by section 21, Article III of the Consti.
 RA No. 7636 absolutely repealed RA NO. 1700 abrogating
the old subversion law. With the enactmet of the said law, the
charge of subversion against the accused-private respondent has
no more legal basis and should be dismissed. As to the charge of
illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions qualified by
subversion. This charge should be amended to simple illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition since subversion is no
longer a crime.
DECISION REVERSED
(67) Gelig vs. People
GR No. 173150
July 28, 2010
Article 148: Direct Assault
Facts:
Lydia and private complainant Gemma Micarsos, were both
public school teachers at the Nailon Elementary School. Lydia
confronted Lydia after learning that she called her son sissy in
the class who is her student. Lydia slapped Gemma in the cheek
and pushed her thereby causing her to fall and hit a wall divider. As
a result of Lydias violent assault, she suffered from incomplete
abortion which was evidenced by a medical certificate.
RTC:
Convicted Lydia of the complex crime of direct assault with
unintentional abortion.
CA:
Lydia cannot be held liable for direct assault since Gemma
descended from being a person in authority to a private individual
when, instead of pacifying Lydia or informing the principal of the
matter, she engaged in a fight with Lydia.
Lydia is only guily of slight physical injuries instead of
unintentional abortion give the fact that she has no knowledge of
the pregnancy of the Gemma.
W/N CA erred in convicting Lydia of slight physical injuries
under information charging her of direct assault with
unintentional abortion
SC:
Under Article 148 of the RPC, Direct assault may be
commited by any person or persons who, without a public uprising
shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any
person in authority or any of his agents while engaged in the
performance of official duties or on occasion of such performance.
When the attack was made, Gemma is in the performance
of her official duties as she was preparing paperwork and
supervising students. Gemma being a public school teacher,
belongs to the class of persons in authority expressly mentioned in
Article 152 of the RPC.
The crime of direct assault does not necessarily mean that
the same physical force she employed on gemma also resulted in
the crime on intentional abortion. There was no evidence that it
was the proximate cause of the abortion.
DECISION REVERSED AND SET ASIDE
(68) US vs. Tabiana
GR. No 11847
February 1, 1918
Article 148: Nature of Assault
Facts:
Defendants Tabiana and Canillas are member of the
muncicipal council and justice of the peace, respectively. The case
originated in circumstances connected with the arresrt under a
warrant occurred in the Tienda of the defendant Tabiana for the
charge of trivial misdeamor, consisting of an alleged trespass
committed upon the complainants premises by Tabianas cattle.
Several attempts were made by the policemen in charge to arrest
the defendant Tabiana which subsequently failed. In the course of
the arrest, the defendant got hold of the warrant of arrest. When
the policemen requested for the warrant, defendant denied having
possession of such. Hence, Defendant beat the policeman, Collado.
Julian Canillas also interfered with the arrest being made and hit
Collado, The former also uttered excited words little comporting
with the dignity and duties of his office. Some of tabianas friends
indicated a determination to fight if the policemen should persist in
their purpose of arresting Tabiana.
SC:
Everything done by Tabiana upon the occasion is properly
referable to the idea of resistance and grave disobedience.
Defendant Tabiana is guilty of resistance and serious disobedience
to public authority under article 252, Penal Code, and not the more
serious offense indicated in Subsection 2 of Article 249, Penal
Code.
A government functionary may commit an offense under
article 252 as well as under article 249; and the relative gravity of
the offense determines whether it falls under the one article or the
other.
Article 249 uses the words shall employ force against
them which force shall be serious in character than that employed
in the present case. In the case, resistance is made by the
defendant to avoid the arrest. Hence, force is relative for a person
to resist. If at the ultimate moment, no force is employed to resist,
there is no resistance but rather submission.
Julian Canillas had participated in the offense committed
on the occasion, knowing that the defendant Tabiana was liable to
arrest under the warrant issued by himself, he is therefore
punishable in the same manner.
(79) Sarcepuedes vs. People
GR No. L-3857
October 22, 1951
Direct Assault: Performance of duty or beyond reason
thereof
Article 148. DIRECT ASSAULT
Facts:
On September 2, 1947, in the municipality of San Enrique,
Negros Occidental , Hilarion Sarcepuedes laid hands on Lucrecia
Bustamanante, a teacher nurse, in the school building of the town
by hitting her twice on the face with his raincoat and violently
pushing her to the window. The assault took place because
Lucrecia had ordered the closing of pathway across her land thru
which Hilarion deeply resented.
CA:
1. Applied Art. 148 and Art. 152 as amended, of the RPC.
2. Teachers, professors and persons charged with the
supervision of public or duty recognized private
schools, colleges and universities, shall be deemed
persons in authority.
3. Laurencia Bustamante was on the day of the
commission of the offense, a teacher nurse in the
performance of her duties.
SC
1. A teacher is expressly included in Article 152 among
the official deemed to be persons in authority.
A teacher-nurse of an elementary public school
whose duty, among others, is to give health
instruction to th pupils, to instruct teachers about
how to give first aid treatment in the school clinic,
and go look after the sanitary facilities of the
school, is a person in authority under Article 152.
2. At the time of the ill-treatment she was about to pierce
an earring hole on the ear-lobe of a school child in the
school clinic and that such work was included in her
mission of giving treatment to the school pupils.
Hence, Defendant knew that she was a teacher-nurse.
3. The motive of the aggression is immaterial.
NO ERROR IN THE APPEALED DECISION
(80) US vs. Ramayrat
GR No. 6874
March 8, 1912
ART. 151: Resistance and disobedience to a person in
authority or agents of person.
Facts:
Sabino Vayson filed a suit against Cayetano Ramayrat, in
the justice of the peace court of Misamis, for the recovery of
possession of a parcel of land belonging to the said Vayson. The
court rendered judgement by sentencing Ramayrat to deliver the
possession of the said land to the plaintiff. When Cosme Nonoy,
deputy sheriff demanded the delivery of the said land, the
defendant refused. Complaint was filed against the defendant for
violation of Article 252 of the penal code.
ISSUE:
W/N defendant violated Article 252 of the Penal Code

TC:
Disobedience of judicial orders is not comprised within
Article 252 of the penal code and that this article is repealed by
sections 232 and 236 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as it
was incompatible therewith.
SC:
The defendant did not disobey any judicial order. The order
issued by the justice of the peace and alleged to have been
disobeyed, is a writ of execution and addressed, as was natural
and proper, to the competent sheriff, and not to the defendant for
the recovery of the property, in possession of the said dispute land.
No order was made to the defendant, nothing is demanded
of him and he is not restrained from doing anything; he is not told
to perform, or not to perform, any act whatsoever. The writ of order
in question in no wise refers to him. It is superfluous to add that
the defendant could hardly disobey an order that in no wise
concerned him.
Article 252 of the Penal Code pertains to crimes for failure
to comply with orders directly issued by the authorities in the
exercise of their official duties, and not with legal provisions of a
general character, nor with judicial decisions merely declaratory of
rights or obligations, such as those proper to be rendered in a civil
suit like property or the possession of land.
FACTS ALLEGED DO NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIME; DECISION
AFFIRMED