You are on page 1of 2

U.S. v.

Dirain
Facts: The chief of police, accompanied by four policemen,
all armed, went to the house of the municipal president and
compelled him by force to go to the municipal building,
where they kept him for four hours, because their salaries
had been in arrears for some time and they had been unable
to secure payment of them from the president. After the
relatives sent him money sufficient to pay the salaries, he
was allowed to depart.
Held: That these facts constitute the commission of the
crime charged in the complaint (first form of direct assault.
U.S. v. Gumban
Facts: The accused went to the municipal president and
protested to him that the carabao of his brother was taken to
the police station for having destroyed a planted area owned
by !uliano. The police station happened to be within the
"one affected by the #uarantine. The municipal president
promised to intervene in the matter and to find out whether
the carabao could be withdrawn from the "one affected by
the #uarantine. $pon hearing this statement of the municipal
president, the accused gave him a slap on the face striking
his left ear. The municipal president was a person in
authority then in the performance of his official duties,
inspecting the #uarantine of animals.
Held: %aying hands upon a person in authority while in the
performance of his official duties constitutes direct assault.
People v. Francisco
Facts: A provincial fiscal was travelling to a certain
municipality to investigate a witness in connection with a
treason case upon the instruction of the !olicitor &eneral.
'n the way, the accused, driving a service truck, refused to
give way to the car in which the fiscal was riding and even
"ig"agged in front of the car to obstruct the way to prevent it
from overtaking his truck. The fiscal signaled the truck to
stop, which the accused did. The accused arrogantly refused
to be investigated and to show his driver(s license. He
grabbed a rifle, cocked it and pointed it to the fiscal.
Held: The fiscal, at the time he was seriously intimidated,
was in the act of discharging the functions of his office and
therefore, in the performance of his duties.
People v. Tilos, et al.
Facts: $pon 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. )ecause the accused flatly refused, the
chief of police became e*cited and chased them and came
to blows with one of them as a result of which both suffered
physical in+uries.
Held: The chief of police was not e*ercising the proper
functions of his office in attempting to sei"e the fishing net
from the accused inasmuch as the municipal president, in
instructing him to do so, e*ceeded his +urisdiction, not being
clothed with +udicial power with regard to the sei"ure of a
disputed property.
U.S. v. Garcia
Facts: The +ustice 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: ,-hat have
you to do with this case, when you are not a party to it.
/lease get out of here.0 The accused left, but when he
reached the stairway he turned back toward the +ustice of
peace and said in a threatening manner, ,-e(ll see0, and
went downstairs. -hen the +ustice of 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.
Held: The accused committed direct assault, the crime being
aggravated by the fact that he laid hands upon a person in
authority.
People v. Hecto
Facts: !ometime in 1anuary or February 2345, the brothers
1esus and /edro Hecto slaughtered a carabao, without
paying the corresponding slaughter fee. $pon learning of the
brothers( non6payment, barangay captain 7atalino /edrosa
asked 1esus to pay the fee. 1esus replied that they could not
yet pay the fee as those who bought meat from them had not
paid them yet. %ater, when /edrosa met the municipal
treasurer, the latter told /edrosa that he was informed by the
Hecto brothers that they had already paid the fee to
/edrosa. 'n 54 February 2345, /edrosa 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 /edrosa. 8rs. /edrosa was able to
pull her husband away and trouble was averted. 'n 59
8arch 2345, on his way home from a nephew(s house, he
was shot by 1esus and /edro Hecto and thereafter, stabbed
by 8arcial Hecto and :oberto !ilvano. The trial court
convicted the accused of the comple* crime of murder with
assault upon a person in authority.
Held: The accused contends that the trial court erred in
convicting them of the comple* crime of murder with assault
upon a person in authority. They pointed out that when the
barangay captain was killed, he was not in the actual
performance of his official duties. )e that as it may, the fact
is, the attack on the deceased was occasioned by the official
duties done by him. As the barangay captain, it was his duty
to enforce the laws and ordinances within the barangay. ;f in
the enforcement thereof, he incurs the enmity of people who
thereafter treacherously slew him, the crime committed is
murder with assault upon a person in authority.
U.S. v. Ramayrat
Facts: ;n the writ of e*ecution issued, the +ustice of peace
directed the sheriff to place the plaintiff in possession of the
land involved in the complaint and to make return of the writ
to the court. The accused was not willing to deliver to the
plaintiff the land as he was directed to do by the sheriff.
Held: The accused who was in possession of the land may
have been unwilling to deliver it, but such unwillingness does
not constitute an act of disobedience. The disobedience
contemplated consists in the failure or refusal to obey a
direct order. A writ of e*ecution issued by the court directing
the sheriff to place the plaintiff in possession of the property
held by the defendant is not an order addressed to the
defendant < it is addressed to the sheriff. The duty of the
sheriff in this case was to place the proper person in
possession. ;nstead of doing so, the sheriff merely ordered
the defendant to deliver the property to the plaintiff.
People v. Macapuno
Facts: ;t is un#uestionable that 8+aor =miliano :a#uidan of
the /hilippine 7onstabulary, was an agent of a person in
authority> that the order he issued for the strikers to clear the
road so as to maintain free passage thereon pertained
particularly to his duty as peace officer to maintain peace
and order> and that for disobedience or resistance to said
order committed in his presence he had the right to arrest or
cause the arrest of the offenders.
Held: The defendants6appellants having obstructed the free
passage along the road from the national highway to the
plant of the 7oca67ola in 7arlatan, by lying on the road
forming roadblocks, 8a+or :a#uidan had authority to order
them to clear said road so as to allow free passage thereon>
and defendants6appellants having refused to obey said
order, their arrest was in order. ;t cannot be said that
because they did nothing but lie on the road, they had no
criminal intent to violate the law, for it was the very act of
lying on the road and refusing to get out therefrom as
ordered by 8a+or :a#uidan so as not to obstruct free
passage on said road that constitutes the crime of resistance
and disobedience to agents of the authorities with which they
are charged.

You might also like