Title 3 - [2/3] Flashcards (143-148)
(99 cards)
1
Q
CHAPTER TWO - CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION
SECTION ONE – ______________________________
A
SECTION ONE – CRIMES AGAINST LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND SIMILAR
BODIES
2
Q
ARTICLE 143. __________________
A
ARTICLE 143. ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY AND SIMILAR BODIES
3
Q
What are the elements of the crime?
A
- That there be a projected or actual meeting of the National Assembly (Congress) or any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional committees or divisions thereof, or any provincial board or city or municipal council or board;
[N-C-Sc-Cc-D-Pb-C-M-B] - That the offender who may be any person prevents such meeting by force or fraud.
4
Q
Speak about the case of Pp v Alipit
A
Chief of police and mayor (any persons) who prevented the meeting of the municipal council are liable under Art. 143, when the defect of the meeting is not manifest and requires an investigation before its existence can be determined.
=============
Facts: The election of the municipal president was contested on the ground of minority. He yielded the chair to the vice-president. The meeting of the municipal council presided over by the vice-president was stopped by the chief of police and the municipal president by arresting the vicepresident and threatening the councilors with arrest if they would continue holding the meeting. The councilors then dispersed, leaving the premises.
Held: Any stranger, even if he be the municipal president himself or the chief of the municipal police, must respect the meeting of the municipal council presided over by the vice-president and he has no right to dissolve it through violence under the pretext of lack of notice to some members of the council, which^was not apparent, but required an investigation before it could be determined
5
Q
Article 144 ________________
A
Article 144 Disturbance of Proceedings
how different from unjust vexation?
6
Q
Elements
A
Elements:
1. That there be a meeting of the National Assembly or any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional committees or divisions thereof, or any provincial board or city or municipal council or board;
- That the offender does any of the following acts:
a. He disturbs any of such meetings;
b. He behaves while in the presence of any of such bodies in such a manner as to interrupt its proceedings OR to impair the respect due it.
7
Q
What specific meetings for the violation of art 144 to be present?
A
- legislative meetings
- provincial board or city meetings
- municipal council meetings
- board meetings
8
Q
Speak of the case of Pp v. Calera
A
Thus, where during a meeting of municipal officials called by the mayor, the chief of police kept on talking although he had been asked by the mayor to sit down, and there was a heated exchange of words among the mayor, a councilor and the chief of police, the chief of police is not guilty of a violation of Art. 144, but only of unjust vexation under Art. 287. (People vs. Calera)
The reason for this ruling is that it was not a meeting of a municipal council, the chief of police who was not a member of the council being a participant therein.
9
Q
who may file a complaint for the disturbance of proceedings?
LB
A
may be filed by a member of a legislative body
Pp. v. Lapid
10
Q
What does it mean for a crime to be ‘de oficio’?
A
public officials can initiate proceedings w/o formal complaint from the victim
When a crime is said to be prosecutable “de oficio,” it means that law enforcement or prosecuting authorities can initiate legal proceedings without waiting for a formal complaint from the victim or another party.
11
Q
What other crime can an offender be liable if he violates art 144 in the context of a National Assembly?
A
may also be punished for contempt by the Assembly.
The implied power to punish for contempt of the National Assembly is coercive in nature.
The power to punish crime is punitive in character.
Thus, the same act could be made the basis for contempt proceedings and for criminal prosecution. (Lopez vs. De los Reyes)
coercive - compelling compliance or obedience rather than punishing
12
Q
SECTION TWO –__________
A
SECTION TWO – VIOLATION OF
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
13
Q
ARTICLE 145.____________
A
ARTICLE 145. VIOLATION OF
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
14
Q
What are the acts punishable under this provision?
A
1ST ACT
- Any person, by using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds [fitf] to prevent any member of the National Assembly from:
- attending the meetings of the Assembly or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or
- from expressing his opinions
- or casting his vote
*note: offender is ANY person
2ND ACT
By arresting or searching any member thereof while the National Assembly is in regular or special session, EXCEPT in case such member has committed a crime punishable under the Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor [RT: 12y.1d - 20y]
Note: To be consistent with the 1987 Constitution, the phrase “by a penalty higher than prision mayor” in Art. 145 should be amended to read: “by the penalty of prision mayor or higher.”
.
15
Q
what are the elements of the first act?
A
ELEMENTS
- attending the meetings of the Assembly or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or
- from expressing his opinions
- or casting his vote.
16
Q
what are the elements of the 2nd act?
A
ELEMENTS
a. The offender is a public officer/employee
(i. Reason: He must be authorized to make the arrest/search)
b. He arrests or searches any member of the National Assembly;
c. The Assembly, at the time of arrest or search, is in regular or special session;
d. The member arrested or searched has not committed a crime punishable under the Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor
17
Q
“To prevent any member x x x from attending,” etc.
Is it necessary that a member was actually prevented from attending, expressing, or casting?
A
It is not necessary that a member of the Assembly is actually prevented from attending the meeting of “the National Assembly,” or from expressing his opinion or casting his vote.
It is sufficient that the offender, in using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds, has the purpose to prevent a member of the National Assembly from exercising any of his such prerogatives.
18
Q
What is parliamentary immunity
A
Guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside of the Congressional Hall.
19
Q
does parliamentary immunity protect members of the National Assembly from responsibility before the legislative body itself?
A
It does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself when his words/conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming of a member thereof.
For unparliamentary conduct, members of Parliament or of Congress have been, or could be censured(criticized), committed to prison, suspended, even expelled by the votes of their colleagues. (Osmena Jr. v. Pendatun)
20
Q
Constitutional Basis
A
Art. 6 Sec. 11
“A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.” (Sec. 11, Art. VI)
Under the 1987 Constitution, therefore, a public officer who arrests a member of Congress who has committed a crime punishable by prision mayor (6 yrs. and 1 day to 12 years) is not liable under Art. 145.
Note: To be consistent with the 1987 Constitution, the phrase “by a penalty higher than prision mayor” in Art. 145 should be amended to read: “by the penalty of prision mayor or higher.”
21
Q
While the Congress is in session, members of Congress are exempted from arrest for all offenses punishable by a penalty less than _______
A
Prision mayor
Thus, a public officer who arrests a member of Congress who has committed a crime punishable by prision mayor is not liable under Art. 145, RPC.
PM is (6y 1d - 12y)
provision says “less than”
22
Q
Article 146 ______________
A
Article 146 Illegal Assemblies
23
Q
READ ME
A
ARTICLE 146. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon the organizers or leaders of any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code, or of any meeting in which the audience is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault upon a person in authority or his agents. Persons merely present at such meeting shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor unless they are armed, in which case the penalty shall be prision correccional
If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that the purpose of said meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is to commit acts punishable unde r this Code, and he shall be considered a leader or organizer of the meeting within the purview of the preceding paragraph.
As used in this article, the word “meeting” shall be understood to include a gathering or group, whethe r in a fixed place or moving. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 12)
24
Q
Two Kinds of Illegal Assemblies / What are Illegal Assemblies
A
Any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under the Code.
Any meeting in which the audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault upon a person in authority or his agents. [trisa]
- If the gathering is cabal, it is inciting to sedition.
25
What are the elements/requisites of the crime in the first form?
- there is a meeting, a gathering or group of persons, whether in a fixed place or moving
- the meeting is attended by armed men;
- the purpose of the meeting is to commit any of the crimes punishable under the Code
*note*: While they have to be armed, it is not required that all the persons present at the meeting must be armed. *Unarmed participants are still liable*
26
What are the elements/requisites of the crime in the second form?
- there is a meeting, a gathering or group of persons, whether in a fixed place or moving;
- the audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault upon a person in authority or his agents.
*note*: If any person present at the meeting carries an **unlicensed firearm**, it shall be presumed that the *purpose of said meeting*, insofar as he is concerned, *is to commit acts punishable under this Code*, and he shall be considered a leader or organizer of the meeting.
27
What crime is committed by forty unarmed persons who gather together in a meeting for the purpose of committing theft of large cattle?
They do not commit any crime. The persons present at the meeting must be armed to constitute the first form of illegal assembly. If at all, they only **conspire to commit qualified theft** which is not punishable.
28
What is the gravamen of the offense of illegal assembly?
The gravamen (material grievance) of the offense is mere gathering for the unlawful purpose relating to a crime under the RPC.
**If the offense is punishable under special law, illegal assembly is not committed.**
29
But not all the persons present at the meeting of the 1st form of illegal assembly must be armed. Suppose seven of the forty persons are armed, the rest are not, and the purpose of the gathering is to commit robbery, must the meeting be considered an illegal assembly?
Yes, because the law does not state how many of the persons attending the meeting must be armed. It is said that a good number, say, at least, four must be armed.
30
Is an unarmed person merely present at the meeting of the 1st form of illegal assembly is liable? If the purpose of the armed persons attending the meeting is to commit any of the crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code, does an unarmed person merely present incur criminal liability?
The last sentence of the 1st paragraph of Art. 146, says: "Persons merely present as such meeting shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, unless they are armed, in which case the penalty shall be prision correccional." Hence, the penalty of arresto mayor is intended for persons present at the meeting who are not armed
31
[A]
Responsibility of persons merely present at the meeting:
[B]
If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm:
[A]
1. If they are not armed, the penalty is arresto mayor.
2. If they carry arms, like bolos or knives, or licensed firearms, the penalty is prision correccional.
[B]
1. It is presumed that the purpose of the meeting insofar as he is concerned, is to commit acts punishable under the Code; and
2. He is considered a leader or organizer of the meeting.
32
What if the purpose of the meeting was to commit acts punishable under Special Penal laws?
Illegal assembly is not committed since only acts under RPC are considered.
33
What if any person present in the
meeting carries an unlicensed firearm?
It is presumed that the purpose of the meeting insofar as he is concerned is to commit any of the acts punishable under the RPC. He is also considered as a leader or organizer in such meeting.
34
Who are the persons liable for illegal assembly?
- The organizers or leaders of the meeting
- Persons merely present in the meeting (**who must have common intent to commit the felony of illegal assembly**)
35
Is it necessary that the meeting be in “fixed place”?
No. Under Article 146, the word meeting shall be understood to include a gathering or group, whether in a fixed place or moving.
36
"Any meeting in which the audience is incited to the commission of the crime of rebellion, sedition, etc.
Suppose the purpose of the meeting was to incite a group of persons to commit rebellion or sedition, would it be an illegal assembly if **before any actual inciting** could take place the Constabulary soldiers stopped the meeting and dispersed the people?
No. Note that the law uses the phrases, "the audience is incited." That the audience is actually incited to the commission of any of the crimes of sedition, rebellion, etc. seems to be a necessary element of the second form of illegal assembly.
When there is an actual inciting, the act would not be punishable only as inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition, because in illegal assembly "in which the audience is incited to the commission or rebellion or sedition, the persons liable are the organizers or leaders of, and persons merely present at, the meeting;
whereas, in *inciting to rebellion or to sedition*, the person liable is only the one who "shall incite others" (Art. 138); or "should incite others." (Art. 142)
**If in a meeting the audience is incited to the commission of rebellion or sedition, the crimes committed are (1) illegal assembly as regards: (a) the organizers or leaders, and (b) persons merely present; and (2) inciting to rebellion or sedition insofar as the one inciting them is concerned.**
37
Article 147 ______________
Article 147 Illegal Association
38
2 Forms of Illegal Association/ What are illegal associations
Associations **totally or partially** organized for the purpose of committing any acts punishable by the Code.
Associations totally or partially organized for some **purpose contrary to public morals**
39
What is the essence/gravamen of illegal association?
The forming of an organization, corporation, or association, for the purpose of criminal activities prohibited by the Code or special laws against public morals (public interest) or any act prejudicial to public welfare.
40
illegal associations v. illegal assemblies insofar as Meetings are concerned
if not sure, always recall elements
MEETINGS
[I Assembly]
- There is an actual meeting or assembly
- Attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under the RPC; or
- Individuals although not armed are incited to the commission of TRISA upon a person in authority or his agent.
[I Association]
- It is not necessary that there be an actual meeting.
- It is sufficient that they organized for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under the RPC or for some purpose contrary to public morals.
41
illegal associations v. illegal assemblies insofar as What is Punished are concerned
[I Assembly]
The meeting and attendance at such meeting
[I Association]
The act of forming or organizing and membership in the association.
42
illegal associations v. illegal assemblies insofar as Who are Liable are concerned
[I Assembly]
- organizers or leaders of the meeting
- persons present at the meeting w/ *common intent*
[I Association]
- founders, directors, and president
- mere members of the association
43
Give a real example of an illegal association
LB
*Lapiang Sakdalista* was declared an illegal association, because it strived to stir up dissatisfaction among the laboring class, instigated them to break the laws and led them to bloody riots and inflamed them to rise up against the government
Pp v. Ramos
44
What is subversion?
This crime is punished under RA 1700 but currently there is no law which punishes this act
[subversion]
refers to actions or activities aimed at **undermining, destabilizing, or overthrowing** an established government, political system, or authority.
It involves efforts to **weaken or destroy the existing order**, often through covert or clandestine means.
45
Acts punished under the Anti-Subversion Act (Rep. Act No. 1700):
1. willfully affiliating or becoming, or remaining a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines
2. Conspiring to overthrow the gov't
3. Taking arms against the gov't
1. Knowingly, willfully and by overt acts (a) affiliating oneself with, (b) becoming, or (c) remaining a member of the **Communist Party** of the Philippines and/or its successors or of any subversive association as defined in Sec. 2 of the Act;
2. Conspiring with any other person to overthrow the Government of the Republic of the Philippines or the government of any of its political subdivisions by force, violence, deceit, subversion or other illegal means, for the purpose of placing such government or political subdivision under the control and domination of any alien power; and
**NOTE**: this element is gone in the revised anti-subversion law PD 885
3. Taking up arms against the Government, the offender being a member of the Communist Party or of any subversive association as denned in Sec. 2 of the Act.
46
difference between subversion and rebellion
- state elements & purpose of rebellion for it to be punished
- mere affiliation in a subversive org is punished and the element of '*taking up of arms by a member* is a circumstance which raises the penalty of that offender
Pp v. Liwanag
47
In the revised anti-subversion law PD 885, what are the acts punished?
1. knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliating with, becoming or remaining a member of a subversive organization or association (s2)
2. Taking up arms against the gov't, the offender being a member of such subversive ass or org
48
What are subversive associations and organizations under Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 885?
Any association, organization, political party, or group of persons organized for the purpose of:
- Overthrowing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines OR
- for the purpose of removing from the allegiance **to said government or its laws**, the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, **with the open or covert assistance** OR *support of a foreign power* by force, violence, deceit or other illegal means. (fvdoi)
49
Chapter Four
____________
Chapter Four
ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE
AND DISOBEDIENCE TO, PERSONS
IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS
50
ARTICLE 148. _____________
ARTICLE 148. DIRECT ASSAULTS
51
How is direct assault committed?
(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*
(2) without public uprising,
- by attacking,
- by employing force or
- by seriously intimidating or
- by seriously resisting [AFIR]
any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, OR on occasion of such performance.
52
Additional penalty for attacking ambassador or minister.
Any person who
- assaults,
- strikes,
- wounds or
- in any other manner offers violence
to the (a) person of an ambassador or (b) a public minister, **in violation of the law of nations**, shall be imprisoned *not more than three years* and fined not exceeding 200k pesos,
*in the discretion of the court*, in addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code. (Sec. 6, RA. 75)
53
differentiate DA from Ordinary Assault (OA)
DA are crimes against **public order**;
OA under Arts. 263 to 266 are crimes **against persons**.
DA triable in RTC
54
What are the elements of the first form of direct assault?
(1) the offender employs force or intimidation;
(2) 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;
(3) there is no public uprising.
55
Example of 1st form of DA
*US v. Dirain*
accused compelled by force the municipal president to go with them to the municipal building and detained him there, they inflicted an act of hate or revenge upon a public officer. This is one of the objects of sedition which the accused aimed to attain.
*Clarin v. Justice of Peace*
The act of the accused in preventing by force the holding of a popular election in certain precincts, without public uprising, is direct assault
56
Is it necessary that the offended party in the first form of direct assault be a person in authority or his agent?
The first part of Article 148 does not seem to require it. If the aim of the offender is to attain an object of **sedition**, the offended party *may be a private individual or person belonging to a social class*.
57
What are the elements of the second form of direct assault?
(1) - by attacking,
- by employing force or
- by seriously intimidating or
- by seriously resisting [AFIR]
(2) the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;
(3) at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent is
(a) engaged in the actual performance of official duties, or that he is assaulted by
(b) *reason of the past performance of official duties*;
**(4) the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties**;
(5) there is no public uprising
58
First element. — (The offender makes an attack, employs force, etc.)
what does "Shall Attack" mean?
The word "attack" includes any offensive or antagonistic movement or action of any kind
59
What degree of force is necessary in
direct assault?
what does "Employ Force" mean?
If the offended party is only an **agent of a person in authority**, the force employed **must** be of a serious character.
If the offended party is a **person in authority**, the force employed need not be serious
The reason for the difference in the rule as regards the degree of force employed when the offended part in direct assault is a person in authority, **is that the penalty is even higher when the offender lays hands upon a person in authority**.
[gpt]
"lays hands upon" in the context of direct assault refers to physical contact or touching, often in a forceful or aggressive manner
60
what is the general effect on the number of felonies committed?
Generally, direct assault is **complexed**with other crimes **resulting** from assault. With the exemption when it results in light physical injury which is deemed absorbed in assault.
61
When the assault on the person in authority or his agent results to his death, what crime is committed?
In purview (scope) of Art 48 (single act constituting to two or more grave or less grave felonies), then the crime committed will be the complex crime of **direct assault WITH homicide** or murder.
Same goes if the assault results in serious and less serious physical injuries. The crime committed will be complex crime of direct assault with serious or less serious physical injuries.
However, if the assault only results in light physical injuries, then the *light physical injury will be deemed absorbed in the crime of direct assault*. As such, no complex crime is committed.
62
What should the relation be of the assault on the person in authority to the performance of his duty?
That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent;
- Is engaged in the actual performance of his duty or that he is assaulted;
- By reason of past performance or official duties
63
Can direct assault be committed during rebellion or sedition?
No. The two forms of direct assault under Article 148 requires that the acts are committed without a public uprising. If there is public and tumultuous uprising, the crime may be sedition.
64
When is evidence of motive important in direct assault?
When the person in authority or his agent who is attacked or seriously intimidated is **NOT in the actual performance of his official duty**.
"On occasion of such performance." the impelling motive of the attack is the performance of official duty. "On occasion" signifies that because of past performance of official duty, even if at the very time of the assault, no official duty was being discharged.
65
The qualifying circumstance of laying hand in direct assault applies to whom?
The circumstance applies to a person in authority only as expressly provided in the law. It does not include laying hand upon an agent of a person in authority.
66
When is laying of hands upon a public officer not Direct Assault?
- not in official performance
- overstepping bounds of authority
Exceptionally, if in the exercise of his function, **the PA or APA acted illegally by overstepping the bounds of his authority**, there is no DA because by so acting irregularly and illegally, he ceases to be a public officer. One is deemed a public officer only when acting within the scope of his authority.
67
When the assault on the person in authority or his agent results to his death, what crime is committed?
Article 48 will apply here. The offender is guilty of the complex crime. The crime should be direct assault with homicide or murder or serious or less serious physical injuries. Slight physical injuries is absorbed in direct assault.
68
example of what constitutes direct assault
- seized the latter by the throat, threw him to the ground, and struck him several blows with the club which the accused…wrestled from the police
[US v. Cox]
- the accused punched the police officer on his face, particularly on his lip, and then grapple with the police officer
[Rivera v Pp]
- If the offended party is a person in authority: the force employed need not be serious.
[US v. **Gumban**]
69
What constitutes NOT direct assault
a. Hitting a policeman in the breast
(US v. Tabiana)
b. Pushing a policeman and giving him fist blows missing to hit him
(Pp v. Reyes)
—————-———-
[b]
aggression should not be considered as an assault but merely as *resistance to an agent of a person in authority*.
70
in the 2nd form of DA, what does 'seriously' intimidate and resist mean?
cases
*Serious Resistance*
** SAmonte = SErious Resistance**
In the course of a quarrel between A and B, the latter called, "Police! Police!" and a policeman who went to the scene saw B getting up. When the policeman was about to arrest A, the latter said: "Don't come near, because I will take your life." As the policeman was approaching him, A struck him with a knife but was not hit.
[US v. Samonte]
*Serious Intimidation*
**DIama = Serious INTImidation**
Pointing a gun at a military police captain who is in the performance of his duty constitutes assault upon an agent of person in authority, because there is serious intimidation.
(People vs. Diama)
**serious intimidation must produce its effect immediately** BECAUSE if the threats be of some future evil, it would not be an assault
71
Who is an AGENT of a person in authority?
An agent of a person in authority is one who, by:
- direct provision of law or
- by election or by appointment by competent authority,
is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property.
72
Examples of Agents of person in authority
1. policemen
2. municipal treasurers
3. postmaster
4. rural policemen
5. sheriff
6. agents of BIR
7. Malacanang confidential agent
8. Brgy. Chief Tanod
[reference]
1. Policeman. (U.S. vs. Cox, 3 Phil. 140; U.S. vs. Tabiana, 37 Phil 515)
2. Municipal treasurer, because he is only a deputy ex oficio of the provincial treasurer, a person in authority within the province where the latter exercises his jurisdiction. (People vs. Ramos 57 Phil. 462)
3. Postmaster, because he is only an agent of the Director of Posts, a person in authority. (People vs. Acierto, 57 Phil. 614)
4. Rural policeman, even if he is not provided with a uniform and does not receive pay, because he is duly appointed by the mayor of the town and is provided with a badge. (People vs. Dosal, 92 Phil. 877)
5. Sheriff. (People vs. Hernandez, 59 Phil. 343)
6. Agents of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. (People vs. Reyes, et al., C.A., 40 O.G., Supp. 11, 24)
7. Malacanang confidential agent. (People vs. Bustamante, C.A., G.R. No. 12950-R, Sept. 22,1955 )
8. Barangay Chief Tanod (People vs. Recto, G.R. No. 129069, October 17, 2001)
73
does Attacking a special agent of the Manila Railroad Co. even while in the performance in his duty is constitute direct assault?
No. it is only **physical injuries**
A special agent of the Manila Railroad Co. is not an agent of a person in authority, because his very appointment as special agent shows that **his duties are limited to violations of law which affect the interests of the said company**. Hence, giving a fist blow to such special agent while in the performance of his duty is only physical injuries.
(People vs. Paras)
74
who is a person in authority?
**Any person directly vested with jurisdiction**, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority.
By “directly vested with jurisdiction” it means “**the power or authority to govern and execute the laws**
75
How do you determine whether a certain public officer is a person in authority?
1. Directly vested with jurisdiction = the power or authority to govern and execute the laws.
2. The powers and duties vested in him by law should be determined.
3. Examples
a. Postmaster general
b. President of sanitary division
c. **Division Superintendent of Schools**
[notes]
[b]
Under the law he is, in addition to other duties toward the protection and preservation of public health and sanitation, expressly vested with the power to enforce all sanitary laws and regulations applicable to his division and to cause all violations of the same to be duly prosecuted. He is, therefore, a person in authority or, at least, an agent of such person. (People vs. Quebra) **Ginebra Beer = QUEBRA bc sanitary enjoys alcohol**
[c]
Teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges, and universities shall be deemed persons in authority.
**For other purposes, such as to increase the penalty** by reason of the
aggravating circumstances where a person in authority is involved, the
teachers and professors are **NOT persons in authority**
76
Functions of the person in authority or his agent must be clearly shown in the information
Even if it is possible that a particular public officer might be clothed with functions that bring him under the definition of an agent of a person in authority, still such functions must be clearly shown in the information. Merely to say that a clerk is an agent of authority is a conclusion of law. (People vs. Carpiso
77
Third element. — {In the performance of duty or by reason thereof.)
The third requisite of the second form of direct assault requires that *at the time such assault or intimidation or resistance is made*, the person in authority or his agent
(1) is engaged in the actual performance of his official duty, or
(2) at least that the assault or intimidation is done by reason of the past performance of said duty.
78
While engaged in the performance of official duties examples
- accused elbowed the provincial governor while the latter was going down the stairs of the municipal building for the purpose of inspecting the office
of the chief of police (pp v. Tevez)
- a barrio captain received complaints about the accused's improper behavior during a public dance near the captain's store. Even though the captain was informally dressed and stayed inside his store, he reprimanded the accused to **maintain peace and order**. The attack on the barrio captain during this interaction was considered direct assault because it occurred while the captain was engaged in the performance of his official duty to maintain peace and order. (people vs. Jalit, )
79
But in the following cases, the PA was NOT attacked *while* engaged in the performance of official duties
1. A barrio lieutenant was shot in the head, when he tried to intervene in a case being investigated by the justice of the peace. It was held that the **barrio lieutenant was NOT acting in the performance of his official duties at the time he was shot**, because the justice of the peace was already acting on the matter. (U.S. vs. Marasigan, 11 Phil. 27)
2. During a political meeting held by a candidate supported by the municipal mayor, the accused created a disturbance. The mayor approached the accused and a personal encounter between the two ensued. The mayor was injured. It was held that the accused was NOT guilty of direct assault, **because the mayor approached the accused, NOT to maintain order**, but to prevent the meeting from becoming a failure. (People vs. Sorrano)
80
When is a teacher not in the performance of official duty
A teacher who goes out of his classroom to talk to a person on matters not related to the school or his duties is not engaged in the performance of his official duties as a teacher, and if, on such occasion, he is assaulted by the person, the latter may not be held liable for the crime punished under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Gamo
81
Can there be a case of physical injuries and NOT DA in a municipal council meeting?
Yes if the PA or APA **descended to matters which are private in nature**
such an attack is not a DA
82
When the A of a P in A agrees to fight. Is that an absolute rule that they are NOT in their official performance?
Not in the case of **Justo v. CA** where the accused challenged the district supervisor of the Bureau of Public Schools and APA agreed to fight.
The attack by the accused constituted DA **because the character/nature of a PA or APA is not assumed or laid off at will, but attaches to him until he ceases to be in office.
[gpt]
the status or role of being a person in authority or their agent is not something that can be casually taken on or off. Instead, it remains with the individual continuously until they officially leave or cease to hold that position in office.
83
so when does a person in authority or his agent considered NOT in the performance of official duties?
The scope of the respective powers of public officers and their agents is fixed. **If they go beyond it and they violate any recognized rights of the citizens**, then the latter (infringed citizen) may resist the invasion, especially when it is clear and manifest. The resistance (act of the infringed citizen) must be coextensive with the excess(of the PA or APA's act), and should not be greater than what is necessary to repel the aggression. (3 Groizard, p. 456, cited in People vs. Chan Fook)
[gpt]
if a public officer or their agent goes beyond the boundaries of their official duties and infringes on the rights of citizen, that's when they are not in official performance
84
explain the case of pp. v. Tilos insofar as the PA or APA is not in performance of official duties are concerned
tilos = tilapia = fishing net case
- chief of police as instructed by municipal president to go to accused to seize the fishing net that rightfully belonged to the creditors
- COP chased the accused and both exchange blows
- COP was not in his official duty and accused was acquitted for self-defense
[BOOK]
Facts: Upon instruction of the municipal president, the creditors having complained that the accused had not paid for their fishing net,the chief of police went to the beach where he found the accused in their own boat with the fishing net, and commanded them to take the net to the municipal building. Because the accused flatly refused, the chief of police become excited and chased them and came to blows with one of them as a result of which both suffered physical injuries.
Held: The chief of police was not exercising the proper functions of his office in attempting to seize the fishing net from the accused inasmuch as the municipal president, in instructing him to do so, exceeded his jurisdiction, not being clothed with judicial power with regard to the seizure of a disputed property.
In chasing and in attacking the accused, the chief of police became an unlawful aggressor and the accused in giving him fist blows merely defended himself against unlawful aggression coming from the chief of police. The accused was justified, as he acted in self-defense.
85
Is self-defense a defense in direct
assault?
Yes. When a person in authority or his agent is the one who provokes and attacks another person, the latter is entitled to defend himself and cannot be held liable for assault or resistance nor for physical injuries, because he acts in legitimate defense.
86
the person in authority or his agent is considered not in the performance of official duties when:
1. PA/APA **exceeds his power** or **acts w/o authority**
- where there is *unnecessary use of force or violence*
2. where both are PA/APA and **descend to private matters**
In the following cases,
1. A person in authority or his agent who exceeds his power or acts without authority, is not in the exercise of the functions of his office. (People vs. Hernandez, 59 Phil. 343; People vs. Garcia, et al., 38 O.G. 94; People vs. Tilos, et al., supra) When the agent of authority makes unnecessary use of force or violence to make him respected, he goes beyond the limits of his powers and from that moment, he acts as a private person. (People vs. Dumo, et al., C.A., 40 O.G. Supp. 5, 58)
2. When the offender and the offended party, who are both persons in authority or their agents, descend to matters which are private in nature, the principle of authority is not violated. (People vs. Yosoya, supra) In any of these instances,
if the person in authority or his agent is attacked, the crime committed is only physical injuries or homicide, as the case may be.
87
Chief of Police A has JD to raid a house
Constabulary B also has JD to raid a house
both argue and COP punched Constabulary B. What is the crime?
Physical Injuries
there can be NO assault upon or disobedience to one authority by another authority when they both **contend in the exercise of their respective duties**.
When there is an actual conflict of jurisdiction, there is, properly speaking, no rebellion against the principle of authority, but an endeavor to enforce the authority which each of the disputants represent
88
what is the effect of the information if allegation of such knowledge is not present?
The information was **deficient** in that it did not allege an essential element of the crime of direct assault that the accused had knowledge of or knew the position of authority held by the person attacked. (People vs. Court of the First Instance of Quezon)
89
Is intention relevant insofar as DA is concerned?
scenario:
The defendant attempted to force his way into the sanctum of complainant's dwelling; and on the stairs when he was blocked by **barrio lieutenant Broca**, he forthwith *took hold and pulled the latter's hand causing him* to fall to the ground.
What is his offense?
He is guilty of resistance, not of direct assault. (People vs. Baesa)
*Baesa = Wait sa! = Broca said falling*
. Defendant must have the intention to defy the authorities
Under the circumstances, he could not be presumed to have the intention of defying the authorities - challenging, acting in such a way as to "constitute a danger to civil society" - in his automatic use of force in laying hands upon Broca and pulling him down. That Broca had fallen on the ground - which defendant might not have intended - is not of much consequence.
Considering the state of mind in which defendant must have found himself at that moment, and the attendant circumstances, *there would seem to be no intent on his part to ignore, disregard, much less defy the authority or its agent*.
Thus, in the absence of those qualifying circumstances, we choose to extend the benefit of the doubt in favor of defendant. (pp v. baesa)
90
what is the **inherent circumstance** of direct assault? what is its characterization?
the inherent circumstance is **"Disregard of Respect due the offended party on account of his rank"**
and DA characterized by the *spirit of aggression*
91
what does "on occasion of such performance" mean?
impelling of the attack is the performance of official duty
"on occasion" - by reason or because of the past performance of official duty
92
Facts: The justice of the peace who read the decision he rendered in a civil suit heard the accused, who was not a party in the case, utter disrespectful and contemptuous remarks, whereupon he turned to him and said: "What have you to do with this case, when you are not a party to it? Please get out of here." The accused left but when he reached the stairway he turned back toward the justice of the peace and said in threatening manner, "We'll see," and went downstairs. When the justice of the peace started on his way home, the accused who was waiting for him nearby, followed him and when he turned to a corner accosted him and attacked him, striking him with a cane and slapping his face
what is his crime?
The crime is **direct assault of the 2nd form aggravated by the laying on of hands**
Held: The accused committed direct assault, the crime being aggravated by the fact that he laid hands upon a person in authority.
93
Sometime in January or February 1972, the brothers Jesus and Pedro Hecto slaughtered a carabao, without paying the corresponding slaughter fee. Upon learning of the brothers' non-payment, barangay captain Catalino Pedrosa asked Jesus to pay the fee. Jesus replied that they could not yet pay the fee as those who bought meat from them had not paid them yet. Later, when Pedrosa met the municipal treasurer, the latter told Pedrosa that he was informed by the Hecto brothers that they had already paid the fee to Pedrosa. On 27 February 1972, Pedrosa confronted the Hecto brothers about the false information they gave the municipal treasurer on their alleged payment of the slaughter fee to him. A heated discussion then ensued and the Hecto brothers tried to attack Pedrosa. Mrs. Pedrosa was able to pull her husband away and trouble was averted. On 24 March 1972, on his way home from a nephew's house, he was **treacherously** shot by Jesus and Pedro Hecto and thereafter, stabbed by Marcial Hecto and Roberto Silvano.
What is the crime?
will a defense matter that Mr. Pedrosa was not in his official capacity at the time of going home
murder with assault to person in authority
direct assault in the 2nd form WITH murder[mine]
No, as the impelling force behind the crime was a result of his official duty
94
When is **evidence of motive important** in direct assault?
It is important when the PA/APA is NOT in the performance of their official duty
it is **immaterial** if the attack, employing force, serious intimidation, or serious resistance is WHILE they are in their official duty
[gpt]
If the attack on a person in authority, who is NOT in the actual performance of official duties, was motivated by the previous performance of official duties, the crime would be considered direct assault. However, **if the motive is different or absent, the offense would be categorized as physical injuries.**
95
a teacher-nurse, who was about to pierce an earring hole on the earlobe of a pupil in the school clinic, was hit twice on the face by the accused, it was held that although the assault was sparked by the act of the teacher-nurse who had closed a pathway across her land through which the accused used to pass in going to and returning from the school and the **motive for the offense was a dispute totally foreign to her educational labors**
what is the crime?
the crime is direct assault
the motive is immaterial as the teacher-nurse was in the official performance of her duties regardless
96
What are the two kinds of direct assault in the second form?
- simple assault
- qualified assault
97
What are the qualifying circumstances in direct assault?
When the assault is committed with a weapon;
When the offender is a public officer or employee
When the offender lays hands upon a person in authority
98
When the person in authority or his agent is attacked and killed while
in the performance of his duty or by reason thereof, the crime should be
direct assault **with** homicide or murder, serious or less serious physical injuries as the case may be
as per art. 48. slight cannot be complexed and therefore absorbed
99
When the PA or APA is considered not in the performance of official duties
- When he exceeds his power or acts without authority, he is not in the exercise of the functions of his office.
- When the offender and the offended party, who are both persons in authority or their agents, descend to matters which are private in nature, the principle of authority is not violated.
Thus, the crime committed is only physical injuries or homicide, as the case may be.
