(52) Enrile vs. Salazar
Pimentel
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 essence of
rebellion has been lost and that it is being used by a lot of opportunists to
attempt to grab power.
(53) People vs.
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