Art. 156.

 Delivery of Prisoners from Jail. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its

maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon
any person who shall remove from any jail or penal establishment any person
confined therein or shall help the escape of such person, by means of violence,
intimidation, or bribery. If other means are used the penalty of arresto mayor shall be
imposed. 

If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside of said establishments by taking
the guards by surprise, the same penalties shall be imposed in their minimum
period. (Revised Penal Code)

Delivery of prisoners from jail is committed by any person who removes from any jail or
penal establishment any person confined therein or helps the escape of such person.

Two ways to commit:

1. By removing a prisoner confined in jail or penal institution
2. By helping said person to escape.

Elements:
1. There is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment;
2. The offender removes therefrom such person, or helps the escape of such person.

Prisoner may be:

1. a detention prisoner or 
2. one sentenced by virtue of a final judgment.

Place where the crime may take place

1. jail or penal establishment
2. outside of the penal establishment

● This article applies even if the prisoner is in the hospital or asylum when he is removed
because it is considered as an extension of the penal institution.

Qualifying and mitigating circumstance

● Qualifying circumstance: use of violence, intimidation or bribery. 

 ● Mitigating circumstance: if it takes place outside the penal establishment by taking the
guards by surprise.

● The bribery is not the offender's act of receiving a bribe but the act of employing bribery
as a means of removing or delivering the prisoner from jail.

"By other means" 

1. Furnishing weapon, material means or tools which greatly facilitate the escape
2. Substitution - taking the place of the prisoner in jail (by deceit). 

● Person who substituted for a prisoner by taking his place in jail is liable for delivering
prisoners from jail because the removal of the prisoner from jail is by other means, that is,
deceipt (The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes).

● A person who took the place of the prisoner would not necessarily use his own name.
Hence, he is also guilty of using a fictitious name under Art. 178 since he used a fictitious
name to conceal the crime of delivering prisoners from jail (Criminal Law Reviewer by Judge
Marlo B. Campanilla).

Offender may be:

1. outsider to the jail
2. employee of the penal establishment who helps the escape of a person confined
therein, provided that the does not have the custody or charge of such person. (The Revised
Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes)
3. prisoner who helps the escape of another prisoner

● If the offender is a public officer who had the prisoner in his custody or charge, he is liable
for infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. (Art. 223, RPC)

● If the offender is a private person who has custody or charge of the prisoner, he is liable

for escape of prisoner under custody of private person. (Art. 225, RPC)

● If three persons are involved – a stranger, the custodian and the prisoner - three crimes
are committed:
1. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners - custodian
2. Delivery of the prisoner from jail - stranger
3. Evasion of service of sentence - convict
Liability of the prisoner who escapes

● If the prisoner who escapes is a detention prisoner, he does not incur liability from
escaping if he does not know of the plan to remove him from jail.

But if such detention  prisoner knows of the plot to remove him from jail and cooperates
therein by escaping, he himself becomes liable for delivering prisoners from jail as a
principal by indispensable cooperation.

● If the prisoner who escapes is a convict by final judgment, he is liable for evasion of the
service of his sentence. 

Bar Questions:

● What is the criminal liability, if any, of AAA who substitutes for a prisoner serving sentence
for homicide by taking his place in jail or penal establishment?

AAA is criminally liable for delivering prisoner from jail and for using fictitious name.

AAA is criminally liable as an accessory of the crime of homicide by assisting in the escape
or concealment of the principal of the crime.

AAA is criminally liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoners.

AAA is criminally liable for misrepresentation or concealing his true name. (2012 Bar)

● Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate, was a detention prisoner in the provincial jail of X
Province. Brusco, another member of the syndicate, regularly visited Dancio. Edri, the guard
in charge who had been receiving gifts from Brusco everytime he visited Dancio, became
friendly with him and became relaxed in the inspection of his belongings during his jail
visits. In one of Brusco's visits, he was able to smuggle in a pistol which Dancio used to
disarm the guards and destroy the padlock of the main gate of the jail, enabling Dancio to
escape. What crime(s) did Dancio, Brusco and Edri commit? 
 Art. 123. Qualified Piracy. —  The penalty of reclusion temporal to death shall be
imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article,
under any of the following circumstances:

1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;

2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving
themselves; or

3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or

rape. (Revised Penal Code)

What is qualified piracy?

Qualified piracy is the commission of the act of piracy under the following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.

What is qualified mutiny?

Qualified mutiny is the commission of the act of mutiny under the following circumstances:
1. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
2. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.

● When crimes other than murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape are committed, such
are crimes in themselves and not qualifying circumstances. (Boado)

Art. 116.   Misprision of treason.. — Every person owing allegiance to (the United
States or) the Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and
having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals or does not disclose and
make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or
the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be
punished as an accessory to the crime of treason. (Revised Penal Code)
 What is the crime of misprision of treason?

It is the failure of a citizen of the Philippines to report as soon as possible a conspiracy,

which comes to his knowledge, against the government.  (Boado)

Elements:
1. Offender owes allegiance to the government, and is not a foreigner
2. He has knowledge of conspiracy to commit treason against the government; and
3. He conceals or does not disclose and make known the same as soon as possible to
the governor or fiscal of the province in which he resides, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in
which he resides. 

Who may commit this crime?

Only citizens of the Philippines may commit this crime.

Note:

●  The offender is a principal in the crime of misprision of treason. But he is punished as an

accessory to treason. Since the offender is a principal in this crime, Art. 20 does not apply
even if he is related to the persons who conspire against the government, because Art. 20
applies only to accessory. The security of the State is more paramount than mere
relationship.

● Article 116 does not apply when the crime of treason is already committed by someone
and the accused does not report its commission to the proper authority. The provision only
speaks of “knowledge of any conspiracy against” the Government of the Philippines, not
knowledge of treason actually committed by another. (Reyes)

● Article 116 is an exception to the rule that mere silence does not make a person criminally
liable. [US vs. Caballeros, 4 Phil 350]

Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty.  —  The conspiracy or

proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision
mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos, and prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding P5,000 pesos. (Revised Penal Code)
 Conspiracy to commit treason 

Conspiracy to commit treason is committed when in time of war, two or more persons come
to an agreement to levy war against the government or adhere to the enemies and to give
them aid or comfort, and decide to commit it. (Art. 8 and 114, RPC)

Elements:
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved
2. At least two persons come to an agreement to –
a. Levy war against the government; or
b. Adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort
2. That person proposes its execution to other persons
3. They decide to commit it

Proposal to commit treason 

Proposal to commit treason is committed when in time of war, a person who has decided to
levy war against the government or adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort,
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.  (Art. 8 and 114, RPC)

Elements:
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved
2. At least one person decides to –
a. Levy war against the government; or
b. Adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort
2. That person proposes its execution to other persons

● General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony is not punishable under Article
8.

● Exception: Under Article 115, mere conspiracy or proposal to commit treason is

punishable. This is because, in treason, the very existence of the state is endangered. [Reyes]

● The two-witness rule does not apply to conspiracy or proposal to commit treason because
they are separate and distinct offense from that of treason. [US vs. Bautista, 6 Phil 581]
 Art. 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals.  — The penalty of reclusion
temporal shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee, and that of prision
mayor upon any private individual, who, by unlawful or unauthorized acts provokes
or gives occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippine Islands or
exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property. (Revised Penal
Code)

Elements:
1. Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts
2. Said acts –
1. provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the
Philippines; or
2. expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property

Note:

● This crime is committed in time of peace.

● If the offender is a public officer, the penalty is higher.

● The intention of the offender is immaterial. The law considers the effects produced by the
acts of the accused. [Reyes, citing Viada]

Examples:

1. Without authorization, X raised troops within the Philippines for the service of Japan
against China.

2. Y publicly destroyed the flag or seal of a foreign state or publicly manifested his hostility
to the head or ambassador of another state.

Art. 121. Flight to enemy country.  — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted
upon any person who, owing allegiance to the Government, attempts to flee or go to
an enemy country when prohibited by competent authority. (Revised Penal Code)

Elements:
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. Offender must be owing allegiance to the government;
3. Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country; 
4. Going to the enemy country is prohibited by competent authority.

Note:

●  An alien resident may be guilty of this crime. The law does not say “not being a
foreigner.” Hence, the allegiance contemplated in this article is either natural or temporary
allegiance. (Reyes)

● Mere attempt to flee or go to enemy country consummates the crime.

Art. 120. Correspondence with Hostile Country. — Any person who in time of war,

shall have correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy
troops shall be punished:

1. By prision correccional, if the correspondence has been prohibited by the

Government;

2. By prision mayor, if such correspondence be carried on in ciphers or conventional

signs; and

3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given thereby which might be

useful to the enemy. If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or
information, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal to death. (Revised Penal
Code)

Elements:
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. Offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by
enemy troops
3. Said correspondence –
1. is prohibited by the government, or
2. is carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or
3. contains notice or information which might be useful to the enemy.

Note:

● Even if the correspondence contains innocent matters, if the correspondence has been
prohibited by the Government, it is punishable.
 ● Prohibition by the Government is not essential in paragraphs 2 and 3.

● If such correspondence is carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, penalty is higher.

● If notice or information given might be useful to the enemy and if intended by the
offender to aid the enemy, such correspondence is treasonous in nature. The penalty is as
severe as that of treason but in the proving the offense, the two-witness rule does not
apply.

Art. 119. Violation of neutrality.  — The penalty of prision correccional shall be

inflicted upon anyone who, on the occasion of a war in which the Government is not
involved, violates any regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of
enforcing neutrality. (Revised Penal Code)

Elements:
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is not involved
2. There is a regulation issued by a competent authority to enforce neutrality
3. Offender violates the regulation. 

Art. 137. Sedition — How Committed. — The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise
publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force any of the following objects:

1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election;

2. To prevent the Insular Government, or any provincial or municipal government or any public
officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any
administrative order;

3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or
employee;

4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or
any social class; and

5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the Insular
Government or the Government of the United States, of all its property or any part
thereof. (Revised Penal Code)
 Sedition is committed by any persons who rise publicly and tumultuously and by means
of  force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods in order:
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular
election;
2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government or
any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution
of any administrative order;
3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer
or employee;
4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private
persons or any social class; and
5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the
National Government (or the Government of the United States), of all its property or any
part thereof.

Public and tumultuous uprising

●  Public uprising and the object of sedition must concur

● The crime of sedition does not contemplate the taking up of arms against the government
because the purpose of this crime is not the overthrow of the government. Notice from the
purpose of the crime of sedition that the offenders rise publicly and create commotion and
disturbance by way of protest to express their dissent and disobedience to the government
or to the authorities concerned. This is like the so-called civil disobedience except that the
means employed, which is violence, is illegal.

Act of hate revenge upon the person or property of a public officer or employee

● Facts: Manila policeman arrested a family member of a military assigned in Manila. The
arrest gave rise to friction between Manila police and the military. The next day, the Manila
police and military soldiers had an encounter, resulting in the death of one of the military
private. In revenge, the military attacked the police station, killing a policeman and a civilian.

Held: Sedition was committed since the object of the public and tumultuous uprising was to
inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person of the policemen. It is not necessary that
the offender should be a private citizen since the law makes no distinction between the
persons to which it applies (People v. Cabrera, G.R. No. 17748, March 4, 1922). 
● Facts: To eliminate the incumbent mayor from being his rival in the coming election,
accused ordered several men to raid the town, kill the mayor and burn his house. Accused's
men raided the town, burned, looted, and robbed houses and stores including that of the
mayor. 

Held: Rebellion is not committed but sedition. The purpose of the raid and the act of the
raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against the Government. The
raiders did not even attack the the seat of local Government. Rather, the object was to attain
by means of force, intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge
upon the person or property of a public official, the mayor (People v. Umali, G.R. No. L-5803,
November 29, 1954). 

Act of hate revenge against private persons or any social class

Facts: The members of "Santa Iglesia" attacked the town of Cabiao and roamed over its
streets, firing shots, yelling, and threatening the residents with death, and thereby
frightening them. The reason for the uprising was that the rich people were loaning money
at usurious terms to their farm laborers, and when the latter were unable to pay the loan
they compelled their children to work for them as servants.

Held: Sedition was committed since the object of the public and tumultuous uprising was to
inflict an act of hate or revenge upon private persons (People v. Lapus, G.R. No. 1222  January
21, 1905). 

Doctrine of Absorption

● Doctrine of absorption is not applicable to sedition since the crime can be committed
without killings, burning of properties and extortion. Accused can be convicted of sedition
and separate crimes of multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and physical
injuries. (Criminal Law Reviewer by Judge Marlo B. Campanilla)

● Accused can be convicted of sedition and murder. Sedition is not the same offense as
murder. Sedition is a crime against public order; murder is a crime against persons. Sedition
is a crime directed against the existence of the State, the authority of the government, and
the general public tranquility; murder is a crime directed against the lives of individuals. The
offenses charged in the two informations for sedition and murder are perfectly distinct in
point of law however nearly they may be connected in point of fact (People v. Hadji, G.R. No.
L-12686, October 24, 1963).
 Penalty for sedition:

1. The leader of sedition shall suffer the penalty of prisión mayorin its minimum period and
fine not exceeding Two million pesos (₱2,000,000).

2. Other persons participating therein shall suffer the penalty of prisión correccional in its
maximum period and a fine not exceeding One million pesos (₱1,000,000). (Art. 140, RPC)

Art. 149.  Indirect Assaults. — The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand (₱100,000) shall be
imposed upon any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any
person coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on occasion of the
commission of any of the crimes defined in the next preceding article (Art. 149,
Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 10951)

Elements:
1. Direct assault is committed against an agent of a person in authority;
2. The offended party comes to the aid of said agent of a person in authority;
3. Offender uses force or intimidation upon the said offended party.

Note:

● Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct assault is also being committed. 

● A private person who comes to the aid of a person in authority (PIA) is now an agent of a
person in authority. If such private person is himself assaulted while coming to the aid of a
person in authority, direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority is committed. 

● However, if a private person who comes to the aid of an agent of a person in authority
(APIA) on occasion of a direct assault being committed against the latter, is assaulted,
indirect assault is committed. (Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review)

● A, a policeman, is having a hard time pushing X, a suspect, inside a police car because the
suspect is pulling back. C, a civilian came to help put X inside the car. X, however, kicked C.
Is there a crime of indirect assault? No, because A who is being aided is not a victim of
direct assault but of a simple resistance. The kicking of C constitutes physical injuries only.  

Art. 152.  Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be deemed
as such. — In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code,
any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member
of some court or governmental corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a
person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed
a person in authority. 

Any person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by

competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio
policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. 

In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors
and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private
schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their
professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons
in authority. (As amended by PD No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873,
June 12, 1985). 

Person in authority (PIA) – is one directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer
who has the power to govern and execute the laws whether as an individual or as a member
of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission.

● Teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly
recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance
of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed
persons in authority for purposes of Articles 148 and 151.

● Section 388 of the Local Gov’t. Code provides that for purposes of the RPC, the punong
barangay, sangguniang barangay members and members of the lupong tagapamayapa in
each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions.

● While a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school is deemed to be a

"person in authority," such teacher or professor is so deemed only for purposes of
application of Articles 148 (direct assault upon a person in authority), and 151 (resistance
and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person) of the Revised
Penal Code (People v. Tac-an, G.R. No. 76338-39 February 26, 1990).

● The postmaster of a municipality is an agent of the Director of Posts, and as such is in

charge of the custody of the Government funds that come into his hands by virtue of the
transactions with the public in postal matters, telegrams, savings bank, and so forth, and like
a municipal treasurer is an agent of a person in authority in addition to being a public
officer, inasmuch as the Director of Posts is a person in authority who by law exercises
 jurisdiction of his own in postal and telegraphic matters (People v. Acierto, G.R. No. L-36595,
November 28, 1932).

● Bar Question (2009):  Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of Judge Lorenzo.
Armed with a piece of wood commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo
on the back, causing the latter’s hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it appeared
that Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited
Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his imprisonment for three (3) days. Is Rigoberto guilty
of Direct Assault? Why or why not? 

Answer: Rigoberto is not guilty of direct assault since one of the elements of the crime, that
is, the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent is missing. The mandatory
retirement age of a judge is 70 years. Since Judge Lorenzo is already 71 years old at the
time of the attack, he has ceased to be a judge. Hence, the attack on him cannot be
regarded as against a person in authority anymore.

The following are persons in authority:

1. Mayor
2. Chief of Police
3. Judge
4. Provincial fiscal
5. Social Security Commissioner
6. Director of Post
7. Municipal councilor
8. Division superintendent of schools
9. Public and private school teachers
10. President of sanitary division
11. Lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of
such performance
12. Barangay chairman
13. Sangguniang barangay members
14. Members of the lupong tagapamayapa

Agent of a person in authority (APIA) 

1. a person, who, by direct provision of law, or by election or by competent authority, is
charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and
property 
2. any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.

● The following are agents of persons in authority:

1. Policemen
2. Municipal treasurer
3. Sheriff
4. Postmaster
5. Agent of the BIR
6. Person who comes to the aid of persons in authority

● Other barangay officials and members who may be designated by law or ordinance and
charged with the maintenance of public order, protection and the security of life, property,
or the maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment, and any barangay member
who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed agent of persons in
authority (Art. 388, Local Government Code)

Public Officers - any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions
in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any
of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or
class, shall be deemed to be a public officer. (Art. 203, RPC) 

● Any person in the government service is a public officer. But he is not necessarily a person
in authority.

Art. 143. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies. — The
penalty of prisión correccional or a fine ranging from Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000)
to Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000), or both, shall be imposed upon any
person who, by force or fraud, prevents the meeting of Congress or of any of its
committees or subcommittees, Constitutional Commissions or committees or divisions
thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board. (Art. 143,
Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 10951)
 Elements:
1. There be a projected or actual meeting of either the Congress, Constitutional
Commission or any of the provincial board or city or municipal council;
2. The offender, who may be any person, prevents such meeting by force or fraud.

● Facts: The municipal council held an extraordinary meeting which was presided over by
vice-president Basa because the hour fixed had come without the president being present.
While the meeting was being held, the accused Victorio Alemus, then the chief of police of
that municipality, entered the room, saying that he had an order from the president to
arrest vice-president Basa. Basa answered that he had not committed any crime. Dominador
Delfino, one of the councilors present, succeeded in persuading the chief of police to wait
until the meeting was over. A few minutes thereafter president Alipit arrived at the
municipal building and after taking one of the revolvers in the police office, fired a shot in
the air, entered immediately the room where the meeting was being held and said in a loud
voice to the chief of police who was there: "Arrest him, arrest him," pointing out the vice-
president. The chief of police obeyed the order, holding the vice-president by the arm and
taking him to the jail, president Alipit following them with the revolver in his hand. Shortly
afterwards, councilor Delfino asked president Alipit if they could continue the meeting to
the end, to which Alipit answered: "Whoever dare continue holding the meeting will be
arrested." the councilors then dispersed, leaving the premises.

Held: Any stranger, even if he be the municipal president himself or the chief of the
municipal police, must respect the meeting of the municipal council which for the time
being, at least, raises the presumption that no defect exists to render it illegal. That meeting
of the municipal council was entitled too this respect on the part of the defendants and the
aforesaid presumption was effective as to them. (People vs. Alipit et. al,  G.R. No. L-18853,
August 22, 1922)

Art. 144.  Disturbance of Proceedings. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine

ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who disturbs the
meetings of either of the House of the Legislature or of any provincial board or city or
municipal council, or in the presence of any such bodies should behave in such
manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to it. (Revised
Penal Code)

Elements:
1. There is an actual meeting of either of the House of the Legislature, or of any
provincial board or city or municipal council or board; and
2. The offender does any of the following acts
1. He disturbs any of such meetings
2. He behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner as to
interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it.

● Complaint may be filed by a member of the legislative body.

● One who disturbs may also be punished for contempt by Congress.

Art. 145.  Violation of parliamentary immunity. — The penalty of prision mayor shall

be imposed upon any person who shall use force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to
prevent any member of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) from
attending the meetings of the Assembly (Congress) or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, from
expressing his opinions or casting his vote; and the penalty of prision correccional
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall, while the Assembly
(Congress) is in regular or special session, arrest or search any member thereof,
except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under this Code by a
penalty higher than prision mayor. (Revised Penal Code)

Acts punished:
1. By using force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of Congress
from attending the meeting of the assembly or any of its committees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or from expressing his opinions or casting
his vote.
2. By arresting any member thereof while Congress is in a regular or special session,
except in case such member has committed a crime punishable by more than 6 years
imprisonment.

Elements of No. 1:
1. Offender uses force, intimidation, threat or fraud
2. Purpose is to prevent any member of Congress from
1. Attending the meeting of the assembly;
2. Expressing his opinions; or
3. Casting his vote.

Elements of No. 2:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He arrests any member of Congress;
3. Congress, at the time of arrest, is in regular or special session;
4. Member arrested has not committed a crime punishable by more than 6 years
imprisonment.

● The immunity does not apply to members of the constitutional commission.

● Under the constitution, a senator or member of the house of representatives is immune

from arrest only in offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment while the
congress is in session. The parliamentary immunity is also limited to arrest and does not
cover search. 

● The Revised Penal Code cannot expand the parliamentary immunity under the
constitution. Hence, the provision on Art. 145 of the Revised Penal Code which expand such
an immunity to search and for offenses punishable by prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to
12 years) is unconstitutional or at the very least inoperative (Martinez v. Morfe, G.R. No. L-
34022, March 24, 1972).

Art. 148.  Direct Assault. — Any persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ
force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in
defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or
seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority of any of his agents, while
engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance,
shall suffer the penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods
and a fine not exceeding Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000), when the assault is
committed with a weapon or when the offender is a public officer or employee, or
when the offender lays hands upon a person in authority. If none of these
circumstances be present, the penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum period
and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000) shall be
imposed. (Art. 148, Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 10951)

Direct Assault - is committed by any person who, without a public uprising, employs force
or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes of rebellion and sedition.

- It is also committed by any person who, without a public uprising, attacks, employs force,

or seriously intimidates or resists a person in authority or his agents, while engaged in the
performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance.
 Qualified Direct Assault 
1. when the assault is committed with a weapon
2. when the accused himself is a public officer or employee
3. when the accused lays hand upon the person in authority

2 Ways of Committing:
1. Without a public uprising, by employing force or intimidation to attain any of the
purposes of rebellion or sedition.
2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by employing force or by seriously intimidating
or by seriously resisting any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the
performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance.

Elements of the first form:

1. Offender employs  force or intimidation;
2. His aim is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of rebellion and sedition; and
3. There is no public uprising

● The first mode is tantamount to rebellion or sedition, without the element of public
uprising. (People v. Recto, G.R. No. 129069, October 17, 2001)

● What is the proper charge against a group of four persons who, without public. uprising,
employ force to prevent the holding of any popular election? (2012 Bar)

Answer: Direct assault of the first form and not sedition since the element of public uprising
is absent.

● What is the proper charge if a person assassinates the President of the Philippines for the
purpose of deprivation of executive power? 

Answer: Complex crime of direct assault with murder. Rebellion is not committed since the
element of public and armed uprising is not present Criminal Law Reviewer by Judge Marlo B.
Campanilla). 

● Direct assault cannot be committed during rebellion.

Elements of the second form, which is the more common form of assault:
1. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious
intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance;
2. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;
3. That at the time of the assault, the person in authority or his agent (a) is engaged in
the actual performance of official duties, or (b) is assaulted by reason of the past
performance of official duties;
4. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his
agent in the exercise of his duties; and
5. That there is no public uprising (Guelos v. People, G.R. No. 177000, June 19, 2017). 

Person in authority or his agent

Person in authority (PIA) – is one directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer
who has the power to govern and execute the laws whether as an individual or as a member
of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission (Art. 152).

● Teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly
recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance
of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed
persons in authority for purposes of Articles 148 and 151. (Art. 152)

● Section 388 of the Local Gov’t. Code provides that for purposes of the RPC, the punong
barangay, sangguniang barangay members and members of the lupong tagapamayapa in
each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions.

Agent of a person in authority (APIA) – a person, who, by direct provision of law, or by

election or by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property or any person who comes to the aid of persons
in authority (Art. 152).

● Bar Question (2013): Miss Reyes, a lady professor, caught Mariano, one of her students,
cheating during an examination. Aside from calling Mariano's attention, she confiscated his
examination booklet and sent him out of the room, causing Mariano extreme
embarrassment. In class the following day, Mariano approached Miss Reyes and without any
warning, slapped her on the face. Mariano would have inflicted grave injuries on Miss Reyes
had not Dencio, another student, intervened. Mariano then turned his ire on Dencio and
punched him repeatedly, causing him injuries. What crime or crimes, if any, did Mariano
commit?
 Answer: The crime committed against Miss Reyes is qualified direct assault while that
against Dencio is direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority.

● A teacher, who comes to the aid of a mayor who is being assaulted, is not a person in
authority because it is not part of his duty to help a victim of aggression. However, he shall
be considered an agent of a person in authority. Thus, an attack against him
constitutes direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority. (Campanilla)

● A lawyer, who prevents his client from further assaulting the judge who convicted him, is
performing his duty as an officer of the court. Hence, assaulting the lawyer, who comes to
the aid of the judge, is qualified direct assault upon a person in authority. (Campanilla)

● Bar Question (2009):  Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of Judge Lorenzo.
Armed with a piece of wood commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo
on the back, causing the latter’s hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it appeared
that Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited
Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his imprisonment for three (3) days. Is Rigoberto guilty
of Direct Assault? Why or why not? 

Answer: Rigoberto is not guilty of direct assault since one of the elements of the crime, that
is, the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent is missing. The mandatory
retirement age of a judge is 70 years. Since Judge Lorenzo is already 71 years old at the
time of the attack, he has ceased to be a judge. Hence, the attack on him cannot be
regarded as against a person in authority anymore.

Time of the assault

1. While engaged in the performance of official duties - If the person in authority or his
agent (PIA or APIA) is engaged in the actual performance of duties at the time of the
assault, the motive for the assault is immaterial. Direct assault is committed even if the
motive is totally foreign to victim's official function. (Campanilla)

Example:
 While a barangay chairman was presiding over a meeting regarding cleanliness of
the barangay, his creditor assaulted him for his failure to pay his debt for a long time. Direct
assault is committed since the barangay chairman was engaged in the performance of his
duty at the time of the assault although the motive behind the assault was
personal (Campanilla).
 2. On occasion of such performance -  Where injuries were inflicted on a person in
authority who was not then in the actual performance of his official duties, the motive of the
offender assumes importance because if the attack was by reason of the previous
performance of official duties by the person in authority, the crime would be direct assault;
otherwise, it would only be physical injuries (People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471 February 17,
1993).

● The phraseology "on occasion of such performance" used in Art. 148 of the Revised Penal
Code signifies "because" or "by reason" of the past performance of official duty, even if
at the very time of the assault no official duty was being discharged, inasmuch as the
evident purpose of the law is to allow public officials and their agents to discharge their
official duties without being haunted by the fear of being assaulted or injured by reason
thereof (People v. Renegado, G.R. No. L-27031 May 31, 1974). 

● The length of time between the performance of the duty and the time of the assault is
immaterial.

Example:
 Because the judge's decision was not favorable to him, accused struck the judge with
a cane while the latter was on his way home (US v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-6820, October 16,
1911). 

3. If the person in authority or his agent is not not engaged in the performance of his
official duty at the time of the assault and the motive for the assault cannot be established,
there is no direct assault but some other offense.

Example:
 Attacking of a policeman who was on his way to buy a lotto. 
 Attacking a mayor who was delivering a campaign speech for his re-election

Serious or Simple Assault

1. Assaulting a person in authority - Laying of hands, whether simple or serious, upon a

person in authority while engaged in the performance of duty or on occasion thereof
constitutes qualified direct assault. 
1. Punching a barangay chairman
2. Slapping a judge 

● Serious intimidation upon a person in authority while engaged in the performance of

duty or on occasion thereof constitutes direct assault. 
 ● Simple intimidation upon a person in authority while engaged in the performance of
duty or on occasion thereof constitutes threat.

● Shouting defamatory words at a teacher during a PTA meeting is not direct assault but
only oral defamation Campanilla). 

2. Assaulting an agent of a person in authority 

● Serious attack or employment of force with intent to defy the law and its
representative at all hazard against agent of a person in authority (e.g. striking a
policeman with a club several times) while engaged in the performance of duty or on
occasion thereof constitutes direct assault.

● Serious intimidation with intent to defy the law at all hazard against agent of a

person in authority while engaged in the performance of duty or on occasion thereof
constitutes direct assault. 

Example:
 A detention prisoner who escaped from prison by disarming the guards with the use
of pistol. Using a pistol to disarm the guards manifests criminal intention to defy the law
and its representative at all hazard. However, if the prisoner is a convict, he is liable
for evasion of service of sentence with qualifying circumstance of use of intimidation. Direct
assault is absorbed by qualified evasion of service of sentence. 
 Accused told the policeman who attempting to arrest him "Don't come near or else I
will kill you." When the policeman approached accused, the latter struck the former with a
knife without wounding him. The accused was not arrested. The crime committed is direct
assault because the accused seriously intimidated the policeman with intent to defy the law
at all hazard.

● Simple attack or employment of force upon an agent of a person in authority (e.g.

punching a police officer) while engaged in the performance of duty constitutes simple
resistance and not direct assault because there is no intent to defy the law and its
representative at all hazard.

● Simple intimidation against an agent of a person in authority while engaged in the

performance of duty constitutes simple resistance and not direct assault because there is no
intent to defy the law and its representative at all hazard. (Campanilla)
 Complex Crime

● General Rule: Direct assault is always complexed with the material consequence of the
act. 

● Exception: If direct assault results in a light felony such as slight physical injuries, the
consequent crime is absorbed. Slight physical injuries are inherent in the offense of assault
upon a person in authority or his agent (People v. Acierto, G.R. No. L-36595, November 28,
1932).

Example:
1. Killing a policeman while directing traffic (Direct assault with homicide or murder)
2. Killing a policeman by means of dynamite while arresting persons for dynamite
fishing (Direct assault with murder qualified by means of explosion)
3. Throwing ashtray against a judge causing blindness after promulgation of judgment
(Qualified direct assault with serious physical injuries)

No direct assault

● There can be no assault upon or disobedience to one’s authority by another when they
both contend that they were in the exercise of their respective duties (NBI vs. Police
concerning who shall take custody of a suspect)

● Where the PIA/APIA act with abuse of their official functions, or when they exceed their
powers they are deemed to be acting in a private capacity. They become aggressors and the
accused has a right to defend himself (batasnatin.com).