Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 496 views

    US vs. Ravidas (Art 137)

    Uploaded by

    tink echivere
    Ravidas was charged with insurrection for failing to report insurgents in his municipality as the municipal president. While his silence was reproachable, it did not constitute the crime of insurrection as defined by law, which requires overt acts rather than omissions. Additionally, Ravidas could not be found guilty of disloyalty, as that crime requires an actual rebellion occurring, and there was no proven rebellion in his municipality over which insurgents had control. The court found Ravidas not guilty as his failure to report did not meet the legal standards for insurrection or disloyalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    US vs. Ravidas (Art 137)

    Uploaded by

    tink echivere
    496 views1 page
    Ravidas was charged with insurrection for failing to report insurgents in his municipality as the municipal president. While his silence was reproachable, it did not constitute the crime of insurrection as defined by law, which requires overt acts rather than omissions. Additionally, Ravidas could not be found guilty of disloyalty, as that crime requires an actual rebellion occurring, and there was no proven rebellion in his municipality over which insurgents had control. The court found Ravidas not guilty as his failure to report did not meet the legal standards for insurrection or disloyalty.

    Original Title

    26. US vs. Ravidas ( art 137)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ravidas was charged with insurrection for failing to report insurgents in his municipality as the municipal president. While his silence was reproachable, it did not constitute the crime of insurrection as defined by law, which requires overt acts rather than omissions. Additionally, Ravidas could not be found guilty of disloyalty, as that crime requires an actual rebellion occurring, and there was no proven rebellion in his municipality over which insurgents had control. The court found Ravidas not guilty as his failure to report did not meet the legal standards for insurrection or disloyalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    496 views1 page

    US vs. Ravidas (Art 137)

    Uploaded by

    tink echivere
    Ravidas was charged with insurrection for failing to report insurgents in his municipality as the municipal president. While his silence was reproachable, it did not constitute the crime of insurrection as defined by law, which requires overt acts rather than omissions. Additionally, Ravidas could not be found guilty of disloyalty, as that crime requires an actual rebellion occurring, and there was no proven rebellion in his municipality over which insurgents had control. The court found Ravidas not guilty as his failure to report did not meet the legal standards for insurrection or disloyalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    United States vs.

    Ravidas March 14, 1905


    G.R. No. 1503 (Art. 137 – Disloyalty of Public Officers or Employees)

    Facts: Alejo Ravidas et al. were charged


    with the crime of insurrection. Ravidas
    prayed for his acquittal alleging that “it is
    not proven that he permitted or
    encouraged insurrection or engaged in
    the same by abetting them directly or
    indirectly.” since the only fact disclosed
    by the evidence adduced in the case is
    that Ravidas knew that there were
    insurgents in a place and his duty as
    municipal president required him to
    report this fact to the senior officer of the
    province but he did not do so nor did he
    take any steps toward pursuing or
    denouncing the insurgents or to protect
    the people from their probable
    depredations.

    Issue: Whether Ravidas is guilty of


    disloyalty?

    Held: No. However reproachful the


    silence of Ravidas may be, it does not in
    itself constitute the crime of insurrection.
    Act No. 292 defines and specified the
    acts which shall be punished as
    insurrection, but among those acts the
    silence of the defendant is not
    enumerated. This silence is not an act; it
    is rather, an omission.

    The crime of disloyalty of public officers


    presupposes the existence of rebellion
    by other persons. In the case at bar, the
    accused could not be held liable even for
    disloyalty because there was no actual
    rebellion going on in the municipality.
    There must be rebellion to be resisted or,
    at least, the place is under the control of
    rebels.

    Digested by: Julio Marco Serrano

    You might also like