People v. Aquino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 30, 1923, Constabulary officers raided a tienda in Malolos, Bulacan, where a gambling game of "jueteng" was in progress. They proceeded to the house of the owner, Trinidad Litingko, where they found her with her husband, Staff Sergeant Fausto Aquino, and their children. The officers attempted to arrest Mrs. Litingko, who resisted, claiming lack of warrant and not being caught in flagrante. As she refused to submit voluntarily, Lieutenant Liwanag took her hand. At this point, Sergeant Aquino intervened, telling Lieutenant Liwanag, "You should behave like a gentleman. You should know how to make an arrest." Lieutenant Liwanag responded that Aquino's duty was to help. Lieutenant Natanawan intervened before a physical encounter could occur, and Sergeant Aquino and his wife were taken peacefully to the municipal building. Procedural History: Sergeant Aquino requested an investigation. Lieutenant Liwanag sought and obtained permission to file a criminal complaint against Sergeant Aquino for violation of the second paragraph of Article 253 of the Penal Code. The trial court found Aquino guilty and sentenced him to one year and one day imprisonment, prision correccional, with accessory penalties, a fine of 325 pesetas, and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Petition: Sergeant Aquino appealed the decision, raising questions regarding the applicability of Article 253, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code and its modification by the Constabulary Law.
Issue(s)
Whether the acts of Sergeant Aquino constitute a violation of Article 253, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code. Whether the Constabulary Law modifies Article 253, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court, acquitting Sergeant Fausto Aquino. The Court held that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime charged.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of Article 253, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code: The Court held that the allegations in the information were not proven. Sergeant Aquino did not actually resist or impede the arrest of his wife. His intention was to remind, protest, or criticize the methods used, rather than to defame, abuse, insult, or threaten his superior officers. The Court emphasized that a bellicose attitude abandoned before any physical encounter, or raising one's voice in protest, does not constitute a crime. The Court noted that had Aquino been a private individual, his actions in looking after his sick wife and respecting home security would be protected. The fact that he was a member of the Constabulary did not materially change the aspect of the case concerning the criminal information and proof. The Court stated that "The allegations of the information have not been proved. Sergeant Aquino did not actually resist his superior officers. He did not actually impede the arrest. The intention of the sergeant was more properly to remind than to insult, to call attention to than to abuse, to protest than to defame, to criticize than to obstruct." The Court further clarified that "The fact that Sergeant Aquino may have had his fist closed and may have spoken in a loud tone of voice, makes no particular difference. A bellicose attitude given up before any actual physical encounter occurs is not a crime. Raising one's voice in protest is not a crime." On the issue of modification of the Penal Code by the Constabulary Law: The majority of the Court made no answer to this question, deeming it unnecessary. However, two justices (Ostrand and Malcolm) believed the question was fundamental. They opined that if the facts warranted action, it should be through the Constabulary Law's internal disciplinary machinery, not criminal prosecution, as it concerns internal discipline of a body with military characteristics. They stated, "It is a matter of internal discipline of a body with military characteristics. To this extent, has the Penal Code been modified by the Constabulary Law as found in the Administrative Code."
Main Doctrine
A member of the Constabulary who remonstrates with a superior officer regarding the methods of arrest, without actual physical resistance or impediment, and before any physical encounter occurs, does not commit the crime of resistance and disobedience to agents of authority or contempt under Article 253, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code. Such conduct may fall under internal disciplinary measures provided by the Constabulary Law.