The Manila Times

Person in authority

- Elmer Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatime­s.net.

Dear PAO,

My brother kicked a person who was later identified as a barangay (village) chairman in a far-flung barangay of our municipali­ty. The incident happened when the chairman was on vacation in our place. The chairman said he would sue my brother for direct assault because he is allegedly a person in authority. Is my brother liable for the said crime?

Dear Elmer,

Direct assault is a crime punishable under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippine­s, as amended by Republic Act (RA) 10951. Under the said provision of law, it is provided that:

“Any person or 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 or any of his agents, while engaged in the performanc­e of official duties, or on occasion of such performanc­e x x x, 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. x x x”

Under Article 152 of the same law, it is stated that “in applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, x x x. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority. x x x”

Correlativ­e thereto is Section 388 of RA 7160, otherwise known as the “Local Government Code of 1991,” which also states that “for purposes of the Revised Penal Code, the punong barangay (village head), sanggunian­g barangay (village council) members and members of the lupon tagapamaya­pa (peacekeepi­ng committee) in each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdicti­ons, x x x”

The elements of direct assault were enumerated in the case of People of the Philippine­s vs Recto (GR 129069, Oct. 17, 2001), where the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban Jr., stated that:

“Direct assault, a crime against public order, may be committed in two ways: first, by "any person or 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;" and second, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, "shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performanc­e of official duties, or on occasion of such performanc­e." The first mode is tantamount to rebellion or sedition, without the element of public uprising. The second mode, on the other hand, is the more common form of assault, and is aggravated when: (a) the assault is committed with a weapon, or (b) when the offender is a public officer or employee, or (c) when the offender lays a hand upon a person in authority.”

Applying the above-quoted decision in your situation, the barangay chairman is considered as a person in authority; however, not every attack on his person would automatica­lly result to crime of direct assault. It is a requiremen­t that the assault was committed while the barangay chairman is performing his official duties or on occasion of such performanc­e. In the instant case, the crime was committed when the chairman was not engaged in the performanc­e of his duties or on occasion of such performanc­e. Thus, your brother may not be liable for direct assault. However, he may have committed physical injury, which falls under Articles 263, 265 or 266 of the Revised Penal Code.

We hope that we were able to answer your query. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciati­on of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines