People v. Taylor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Anderson Taylor, was charged with violently assaulting Leoncio Martinez, a municipal policeman of Manila, while the latter was attempting to arrest the accused and his companions for violating a lawful ordinance of the city of Manila by making use of threatening and insulting language on the public streets. Procedural History: The trial court imposed the penalty under paragraph 3 of article 250 of the Penal Code, considering the extenuating circumstance defined in paragraph 7 of the same article due to an uncontrollable burst of sudden passion (arrebato y obcecacion). The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the arrest was lawful. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct. Whether the extenuating circumstance of arrebato y obcecacion was applicable.
Ruling
The judgment and sentence of the trial court were reversed. The Supreme Court imposed upon Anderson Taylor the medium degree of the penalty of "prision correccional in its minimum to its medium degree," specifically one year eight months and twenty-one days' imprisonment, a fine of 375 pesetas, and the costs of the proceedings in both instances. The accused was allowed credit for one-half the period of his detention.
Ratio Decidendi
On the lawfulness of the arrest: The Court found that the arrest was lawful. The accused and his companions were violating a lawful ordinance of the city of Manila by using threatening and insulting language on the public streets. The policeman was in the lawful performance of his duty when he attempted to make the arrest. Therefore, the contention that the arrest was illegal and the policeman was the aggressor was without merit. On the correct penalty: The Court held that the trial court erred in imposing the penalty under paragraph 3 of article 250 of the Penal Code. This paragraph applies only when the offense is committed against an "authority" himself, not against an "agent of authority." A policeman is classified as an agent of authority, not an authority. Consequently, the penalty should have been imposed in accordance with the last paragraph of the said article, which pertains to offenses against agents of authority. On the applicability of the extenuating circumstance: The Court ruled that the trial court erred in considering the extenuating circumstance of an uncontrollable burst of sudden passion (arrebato y obcecacion). The Supreme Court of Spain has consistently held that this circumstance is not extenuating unless the offense was provoked by prior unjust or improper acts. In this case, the arrest was lawful, and therefore, it did not constitute a provocation that would justify the consideration of this extenuating circumstance. The indignation and anger of the accused stemmed from a lawful act, not from prior unjust or improper conduct by the policeman.
Main Doctrine
A policeman is an agent of authority, not an authority himself, and the penalty for offenses committed against him should be imposed in accordance with the provisions for agents of authority. The circumstance of an offense being committed under an uncontrollable burst of passion is not extenuating unless provoked by prior unjust or improper acts.