People v. Samonte
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of September 6, 1908, Isaac Samonte and Basilio Rabe were in a house and subsequently met in the street where they engaged in a quarrel. Samonte knocked Rabe down and maltreated him. Rabe called for police assistance. Municipal policeman Gregorio Glindo, on patrol duty, heard the cries and went to the scene. Upon arrival, Glindo attempted to arrest Samonte, stating, "In the name of the United States, don't move." Samonte responded, "Don't come near, because I will take your life," and struck at Glindo with a knife. Glindo was unable to arrest Samonte and reported the incident to councilman Demetrio Pandenio, who ordered Glindo to arrest Samonte. They found Samonte in Mutingbayan, and Glindo again attempted to arrest him. Samonte resisted, striking at Glindo with his knife. Pandenio then ordered Samonte to submit, to which Samonte replied, "I do not recognize anyone," and struck at Pandenio with the knife. Samonte was not arrested that night due to his resistance. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Tayabas convicted Isaac Samonte of criminal attempt against an agent of the authorities and sentenced him to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of prision correctional, a fine, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, accessory penalties, and costs. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the policeman attempted to arrest him in Verdales Street and that, even if an attempt was made, the policeman was not authorized to make the arrest without a judicial warrant under the circumstances.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution established beyond a reasonable doubt that the policeman attempted to arrest the accused in Verdales Street. Whether the policeman, lacking a judicial warrant, was authorized to make the arrest under the circumstances. Whether the accused committed criminal attempt against an agent of the authorities by resisting arrest and striking at the officers with a knife.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, finding the penalty imposed to be in accordance with the law and the proofs presented. The Court ordered that costs be paid by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the prosecution established beyond a reasonable doubt that the policeman attempted to arrest the accused in Verdales Street: The Court found that the policeman, Gregorio Glindo, was on patrol duty in the barrio of Macalalong when he heard cries of "police! police!" emanating from the street (Verdales). He proceeded to the scene, arriving shortly after the offended party, Basilio Rabe, was getting up from being maltreated by the appellant. Glindo, as a peace officer, was in close proximity, only six or eight brazas away, and the disturbance had not yet terminated when he arrived. The Court held that under these circumstances, it was the duty of the police officer to stop the disturbance by placing the defendant under arrest. The fact that the policeman did not witness the entire altercation but heard the cries for help and arrived while the disturbance was ongoing was sufficient to establish the attempt to arrest. On the issue of whether the policeman, lacking a judicial warrant, was authorized to make the arrest under the circumstances: The Court affirmed the authority of a peace officer to arrest without a warrant any person committing a breach of the peace in his presence. The Court cited legal authorities stating that an offense is committed within the view of an officer when the officer sees the offense, hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene, or if the offense is continuing or has not been consummated at the time of the arrest. In this case, Glindo heard the cries for help and arrived on the scene before the disturbance had finally ended. Therefore, he had the authority, and it was his duty, to arrest the defendant without a warrant. On the issue of whether the accused committed criminal attempt against an agent of the authorities by resisting arrest and striking at the officers with a knife: The Court held that the accused, Isaac Samonte, committed criminal attempt against an agent of the authorities. After an attempt was made to arrest him by a duly authorized police officer in the discharge of his duty, Samonte offered grave resistance by refusing to submit to arrest and by striking at the policeman with a knife, thereby attempting to inflict personal injury. The Court clarified that even though the policeman was not wounded or touched by the knife, these facts did not absolve him from criminal responsibility. Article 249 of the Penal Code defines those who attack authorities or their agents, employ force against them, or offer equally grave resistance while they are discharging their duties as committing criminal attempt. Article 250 prescribes the penalty for such acts. Samonte's actions, including striking at the councilman after being ordered to submit, clearly fall under the definition of grave resistance.
Main Doctrine
A peace officer may arrest without a warrant any person committing a breach of the peace in his presence, and resistance to such lawful arrest, even without physical contact, constitutes grave resistance against an agent of the authorities.