You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cec3?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[US v. MANUEL BAUTISTA](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cec3?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:cec3}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 10678, Aug 17, 1915 ]

US v. MANUEL BAUTISTA +

DECISION

31 Phil. 308

[ G. R. No. 10678, August 17, 1915 ]

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL BAUTISTA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

JOHNSON, J.:

This  defendant  was charged with  the crime  of  assault upon agents of the authorities and insulting them.   Upon said complaint the defendant was arrested, arraigned, tried, found  guilty, and sentenced  by  the Honorable  Vicente Nepomuceno to be imprisoned for a  period of  four years two months and one  day of  prision correccional, with the accessory penalties of article 61 of the Penal Code, to pay a fine of P300, and in case of insolvency to suffer  subsidiary imprisonment, in accordance  with the provisions of the law, and to pay the costs.  From that sentence the  defendant appealed to this court.

In this court the  appellant  alleges that  the evidence adduced during  the trial of the cause  was  not sufficient to show that  he was guilty of  the crime  charged in the complaint.

The record  shows that some time in the month of November, 1914,  an order of arrest was issued for the defendant and placed in the hands of the chief of police of the municipality of Gerona.   On or about the 15th of November, the chief of  police,  accompanied by  another policeman, went to the house where the defendant was staying for the purpose of making the arrest.  Upon  arrival at the house, inquiry was made of some of the occupants whether or not the defendant was there.  Upon being informed that he was in the house, the policeman  who  accompanied the chief  of police entered the house without  permission and attempted to  arrest the  defendant without explaining to him the cause  or nature of his presence there.  The defendant, according to the declaration of the chief  of police, resisted the arrest, calling to his neighbors for assistance, using the following language: "Come here; there are some bandits here  and they are abusing  me."  Many  of his neighbors, hearing his cry,  according to the testimony of the chief of police, immediately came to his assistance and surrounded  his house.

The policeman, who accompanied the chief, in his declaration said that  when he attempted to arrest the defendant, the defendant  said to him: "Why do you enter my house, you shameless  brigands?" and called to one  Basilio, saying: "There are  some bandits here!"

The policeman further testified that he then informed the defendant  that he came there for the purpose of arresting him, and the defendant  asked him if he had an order of arrest, which question  was answered  by the policeman in the affirmative.  Said policeman further testified  that immediately after he had notified the defendant that he was a policeman and had an  order of arrest,  the defendant submitted to  the arrest without further resistance  or objection.

The whole record shows that the resistance given by the defendant was done under the belief that the persons  who had entered his house were tulisanes.  The record  also shows, by the declaration  of the witnesses for the prosecution, that as soon as he had been informed that they were officers of the law, armed with an order of arrest, he peaceably submitted and  accompanied them.  We do not believe that the law contemplates the punishment of persons for resistance of the authorities under circumstances such as those which are disclosed in the present case.  If  the defendant believed that those who had entered his house were, in fact,  tulisanes, he was entirely justified in calling his neighbors and in making an attempt to expel them from his premises.

After  a careful examination of the evidence, we  are of the opinion  that the record does not disclose sufficient facts to justify the sentence imposed by. the lower court.  The defendant is not guilty of the crime described in the complaint.  The sentence of the lower court is therefore hereby revoked, the complaint is hereby  ordered  dismissed, and the defendant is discharged from the custody of the law. So ordered.

Arellano,  C. J., Torres,  Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

tags