Crimes Against Public Order - Part II

Monday, 20 November 2017 6:22 PM

Art 151 Resistance or Disobedience

If there is no serious intimidation, there is no direct assault. Direct assault only happens when
there is an attack or intimidation. But there is still a crime. Intimidation need not be serious.
Intimidation or resistance may not be serious. Aside from resistance, there is also the other
crime of disobedience. Under 151, there is now serious and slight disobedience.

If intimidation is serious, it will be punished as direct assault. If it is not, art 151. If resistance is
not serious, 151. If serious, direct assault.

For disobedience, whether it be serious or slight, it is punished under 151, different

paragraphs. For serious, first paragraph. For slight, it's in the second paragraph. For example,
there is a checkpoint and the driver of the motorcycle is motioned to stop because there is a
checkpoint. If the motor won't stop, that will be disobedience. That can even be serious.
That’s already a crime. When there is a crime committed already, that can already give rise
to an arrest. When there is already an arrest because there is a crime committed, there can
also be search incidental to arrest because of the crime. If there is no crime, there can be no
search. Disobedience is a crime. It's already a crime.

You might have heard of the crime obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is another
crime that is punished not in the RPC, but a special penal law. If there is resistance or
disobedience, could there also be a prosecution under an obstruction of justice? Yes, there is
no absorption. Two separate charges for two different crimes.

Art. 152 - Persons who are considered persons in authority.

Art. 153 - Tumultuous disturbance, interruption liable to cause disturbance

Tumultuous - do not be misled by number 3. It's not really three. It's more than three. There
must be more than three persons causing disturbance. Either they are armed or there is
violence. Even when there are no arms, provided that there is violence. There has to be
disturbance, and it has to be serious and committed in a public place or during a public
performance. Public performance is different from pub place. Public place does not
necessarily mean there is a performance.

Whether there is a public performance or in a public place, there can be tumultuous

disturbance. How does this differ from alarms and scandals?

In alarms and scandals, it is not necessary that there is more than three persons. Pwede ra
one. In here, the specific acts constituting the crime are enumerated. Those that are outside
of the enumerated acts would not fall under alarms and scandals.

Oh yeah, that's better noh.

Art. 154 - Unlawful Use of Means of Publication and Unlawful Utterances

It can be any kind of media or means of publication. If it is unlawfully use for the purpose of
creating alarms. The purpose must be to alarm the public. If the purpose is to humiliate or
cast dishonor on a person, then that will not be 154. That will be libel. If purpose is to
humiliate.

What about advisories? Unlawful means?

No. Because embassies would only issue advisories to its own citizens. They will just say that so
on and so forth, and therefore, Canadians are not advised to go to certain places. There
was a time when the Bohol Maute thing happened, a few days before that, there was the US
advisory that says that Americans were advised not to go to Bohol or Dumaguete.

Art. 155 - Alarms and Scandals

Criminal Law II Page 1

Like I said earlier, the manner of committing alarms and scandals are enumerated. Only
these acts constitute alarms and scandals.

Discharge of firearms. It must not be aimed at anybody. There should be no intent to kill -
otherwise it would be attempted. Even if the intent to kill is not to kill, it could still be illegal
discharge of firearm. If it hits a person and the person dies. It must be cause alarm or danger.

If it is to threaten another, it won't be alarms and scandals. It will now become grave threats
because its purpose is to threaten a purpose. If it was just to cause alarm, then that is Art 155.
If it is to scare, that's grave threats.

2. Instigating or taking part in charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or

prejudicial to public tranquility.

3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in other
nocturnal amusements.

4. Causing disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise,

provided that the circumstances do not fall under Art. 155.

Other than this, this is not really a catch-all provision, unlike other crimes such as grave
scandal. This is not a crime against persons or public property. This is a crime against
public order. A crime against public order does not necessarily need a particular
person who is victimized. Even if the neighbors do not complain, you can still be sued
for this.

Art. 156 - Delivery of Prisoners from Jail

It talks about delivery of prisoners from jail. Delivery is not really delivery. It's more of
removing the person from jail. Or assisting in his escape. Now, it does not distinguish
whether the prisoner be convicted or not yet convicted regardless of the status of the
prisoner, so long as another person assisted in his escape. That will be delivery of
persons. This is the crime committed by the person who removed or aided the person to
escape.

No distinction of conviction or not. He may not yet be convicted. If he is removed from

jail, then the person who assisted will be liable, but the prisoner will not be liable.

Penalty is higher if by means of violence. Person who assists unwittingly (Grab driver)
does not actually assist because prisoner did not come jail.

Art. 157-159 Evasion of service of Sentence

157 - ordinary circumstance (Pangan v. Gatbalite)

"escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Art 93 and 157 of RPC. One who has not
been committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped. There must be an escape.
Without escape, there will be no evasion.

Implications would also include, diba in perscription, in penalties it needs to be that he

must be arrested first. If he is not arrested and convicted, and he escapes, prescription
of penalty will not prescribe. It will only prescribe when he is arrested and escapes.

Ruben Ecleo case - he was able to post bail. He may have had knowledge of
proceedings. Eventually, he was convicted. He was not arrested. Could he be liable for
evasion? No, because he was not arrested. But will the penalty prescribe? Also, no.
That is the implication of this ruling. Even if he hides for several years or decades, the
penalty will not prescribe.

158 - escaping/occasion of disorder or calamities

159 - violation of conditional pardon

ONLY convicted person can commit this crime. This is for the person who actually escaped
the jail. There is no crime of punishing a prisoner who is not yet convicted who escapes the
jail. The crime is only for those who have already been convicted. But for the other person

Criminal Law II Page 2

jail. The crime is only for those who have already been convicted. But for the other person
who assisted, it doesn't matter.

Art. 160 Quasi-Recidivism

It does not define a felony. It talks of a special aggravating circumstance. So, here is quasi-
recidivism, a person who has already been convicted and so before or during his sentence,
he commits another crime. For example, people think that because you are in jail, you can
commit any crime already.

Let's say, the drug lords in Bilibid. They are already there, so might as well make the most out
of the situation. They will still engage in a crime. They can still be charged for the new crime,
and for the crime, this 160 will not modifying for the new crime, not for the old one. The effect
is that it will maximize the penalty regardless of ordinary aggravating circumstances. This
cannot be offset.

Kinds of Repeat Offenses:

1. Recidivists - effect of an ordinary aggravating circumstance. (under same title)

2. Habituality - Art. 14/ Reiteracion. Ordinary aggravating.
3. Multi-recidivism/habitual delinquency - commission of a crime within 10 years 3 or more
times.

Case study: Picture.

Frustrated parricide with direct assault.

Case study 2: Picture

No crime. No order disobeyed. No resistance.

Case study 3: Picture

Criminal Law II Page 3