Professional Documents
Culture Documents
She was detained at the police precinct, underwent investigation, and released
only after 48 hours
a) Patrolman Bart liable for any offense? Explain your answer.
b) Suppose Amy resisted the arrest and grappled with patrolman Bart, is
she criminally liable thereby? State your reasons.
Answer:
a) Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code - Delay on the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial
Authorities.
b) She is criminally liable for slight disobedience under Article 151 of the
Revised Penal Code - Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or
the agents of such person.
Art 151; Simple resistance
1979 No. VII
While on patrol, X, a policeman, spotted Y standing in a dark street corner,
X accosted Y suspecting him to be a long wanted criminal on the basis of
appearance. Y had no identification papers but he gave his name and address. X
told Y he would be brought to headquarters for questioning. When Y refused, X
told him to remove his coat so he could find if he has a tattoo on his left forearm,
a mark of the wanted criminal X was hunting, Y refused again and resisted all
efforts of X by pushing and pulling him. X charged Y with assault. Do you agree?
Answer
The crime committed is not assault but simple resistance. The policeman
was on patrol when he spotted Y standing in a dark street corner, where he had
no reason to be. X was hunting a wanted criminal. A duty of a policeman is to
arrest lawbreakers in order to place them at the disposal of judicial or executive
authorities. One means to achieve this end is the identification of the alleged
lawbreaker. (U.S. vs. Sanches, 27 Phil. 442). A peace officer might arrest for
examination persons walking in the street at night when there's reasonable
ground to suspect that a felony is committed although there is no proof thereof
(People vs. Santos, 36 Phil, 853). Y was not arrested but only accosted on
suspicion of being a long wanted criminal because of his appearance. X's
request that Y would be brought to the headquarters was refused and Y also
refused that he remove his coat to find out if he has a tattoo in his left forearm, a
mark of the wanted criminal whom X was hunting. X was therefore acting in the
legitimate performance of his duties. Y pushed and pull X in resisting his efforts
to find out whether he has a tattoo. The acts committed by Y however do not"
constitute assault but simple resistance because such do not indicate manifest
defiance to the authority of the law (US, vs. Tabiana, 37 Phil. 515, People vs.
Baesa, CA 55 O.G. 10291).
Art 156; Delivery of prisoners from jail
2002 No VI.
B. A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for emergency medical
treatment. His followers, all of whom were armed, went to the hospital to take him
away or help him escape. The prison guards, seeing that they were outnumbered
and that resistance would endanger the lives of other patients, deckled to allow
1) Failure to inform him of his right to counsel and to remain silent [Sec.
4, par. 1); and
2) Prevent an Immediate member of his family which includes fiancee, to
confer with Estafador (Sec. 4(b).
Subversion
1991 No. 2:
a) May a ranking leader of the NPA who has taken up arms against the
government be simultaneously prosecuted for violation of Section 1 of RA. 1700
(the Anti-Subversion Act) and for rebellion under Article 135 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended?
Answer;
Yes, because the two offenses are punished under separate laws.
Besides, the elements of the two offenses differ.
b) What would have been the legal effect of the repeal of P.D. No. 1835
(Codifying The Various Laws on Anti-Subversion and Increasing the Penalties
For Membership in Subversive Organizations) as amended by P.D, No. 1975, if