Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11847)
Issue
Whether the defendants committed the aggravated offense of “attack upon agents of public authority” under article 249, or the lesser offense of “resistance and serious disobedience” under article 252.
Majority Holding
• The facts do not demonstrate the spirit of aggression required for article 249.
• The defendants are instead guilty of resistance and serious disobedience under article 252.
Reasoning
Nature of Force
– Article 249’s reference to force must be read in light of its high penalties (prisión correccional to minimal prisión mayor) and its placement alongside aggravating circumstances (article 250).
– Minor blows or pushes incidental to arrest differ from the “force” envisioned in article 249.Legislative Scheme
– Article 249 defines the more serious offense; article 252 covers lesser resistance.
– Graves resistance requires “something more dangerous to civil society” than a simple punch in the breast.Conduct of Defendants
– Tabiana yielded twice before and would have again but for intervention by bystanders and the justice of the peace.
– No evidence of a deliberate attempt to defy law “at all hazards.”Liability of Canillas
– As the warrant-issuing justice who also struck Callado and ordered the police away, Canillas knowingly participated in resisting his own warrant’s execution.
Sentence
Both defendants are sentenced to:
• Two months and one day of arresto mayor.
• A fine of ₱125, with accessory penalties and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
• Costs against the appellants.
Dissenting Opinion (Justice Araullo)
• The record fails to prove genuine resistance or assault.
• Tabiana sought to comply by posting bail with the justice of the peace, who had authority to grant provisional release.
• Police testimony was self-serving, inconsistent, and influenced by the chief of police’s enmity toward Tabiana.
• Canillas acted within his judicial capacity in accepting bail and ordering the police to withdraw; no “assault upon persons in authority
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-11847)
Facts
- On February 23, 1915, in Leon, Iloilo, two policemen served Gelasio Tabiana with a warrant for a trivial cattle-trespass misdemeanor, issued by Justice of the Peace Julian Canillas.
- Tabiana, a municipal councilor, former municipal president, and candidate for reelection, agreed to report later with his herdsman, but only after inspecting the warrant.
- At about 8 p.m., policemen Callado and Cabilitasan found Tabiana in his tienda (store under his residence), and attempted to enforce the warrant.
- Tabiana asked to see the warrant, took it from Callado, examined it, pocketed it, then said “Come along” and pushed Callado; friends also intervened.
- Tabiana and his friends departed to seek bail from the justice of the peace when municipal officials were absent; policemen consented.
- Later that night the chief of police dispatched three officers to retrieve the warrant and arrest Tabiana; at the tienda, Tabiana denied having the warrant and struck Callado in the chest.
- Two bystanders rescued Tabiana; Julian Canillas arrived, struck Callado on the back, and ordered the policemen to withdraw, invoking his official authority.
- The confrontation ceased without further physical resistance by Tabiana, who had already been subdued by the wrist.
Procedural History
- The Court of First Instance of Iloilo convicted Tabiana and Canillas of attacking agents of public authority under Article 249, second subsection, Penal Code.
- Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of the Philippines (G.R. No. 11847).
Issue
- Whether the defendants’ conduct constituted “attack upon agents of public authority” under Article 249, Penal Code, or the lesser offense of “resi