Case Digest (G.R. No. 10678)
Facts:
The United States v. Manuel Bautista, G.R. No. 10678, August 17, 1915, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johnson, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiff-appellee was the United States and the defendant-appellant was Manuel Bautista. Bautista was charged with assault upon agents of the authorities and insulting them. He was arrested, arraigned, tried before the court presided over by Judge Vicente Nepomuceno, found guilty, and sentenced to four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional, with the accessory penalties under article 61 of the Penal Code, a fine of P300, and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus costs.
The factual record shows that in November 1914 an order of arrest for Bautista was placed with the chief of police of the municipality of Gerona. On or about November 15, the chief of police and another policeman went to the house where Bautista was staying to effect the arrest. Upon arrival they inquired whether Bautista was in the house; being told he was, the accompanying policeman entered the house without permission and attempted to arrest Bautista without first explaining the cause or the nature of his presence there.
According to the prosecution witnesses, especially the chief of police and the accompanying policeman, Bautista resisted the attempted arrest and cried out to his neighbors—uttering words such as "Come here; there are some bandits here and they are abusing me" and "Why do you enter my house, you shameless brigands?"—thus bringing many neighbors who surrounded the house. The policeman testified that he then identified himself and showed an order of arrest; after being so informed Bautista submitted peacefully and accompanied the officers.
From the trial court's conviction and sentence, Bautista appealed to this Court. On appeal he principally contended that the evidence ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence sufficient to sustain Bautista's conviction for assault upon agents of the authorities and insulting them?
- Did Bautista's resistance, given his belief that the intruders were tulisanes (bandits), justify his conduct so as to negate c...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)