G.R. No. L-11847; February 1, 1918
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GELASIO TABIANA and JULIAN CANILLAS, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Defendants Gelasio Tabiana (a municipal councilor and former municipal president) and Julian Canillas (a justice of the peace) were charged with attack upon agents of public authority under Article 249 in relation to Article 250(2) of the Penal Code. The incident occurred on February 23, 1915, in Leon, Iloilo. Earlier that day, a warrant was issued for Tabiana’s arrest over a minor trespass complaint. Policemen Emiliano Callado and Baltazar Cabilitasan served the warrant. Tabiana initially resisted but later agreed to go to the municipal building. En route, he seized the warrant from Callado and kept it. At the municipal building, officials had left, causing Tabiana to become angry. He and his companions left to seek the justice of the peace (Canillas) for bail. The chief of police then dispatched the policemen to retrieve the warrant and bring Tabiana to the station. At Tabiana’s tienda, he denied having the warrant, struck Callado, and was momentarily detained until bystanders intervened. Canillas arrived, struck Callado, and ordered the policemen to leave, threatening their dismissal. The policemen withdrew due to the hostile crowd and Canillas’s command.

ISSUE:
Whether the acts of the defendants constitute the crime of attack upon agents of public authority under Article 249 of the Penal Code, or a lesser offense such as resistance and serious disobedience under Article 252.

RULING:
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that Tabiana’s actions did not constitute the grave offense of atentado (attack) under Article 249, which requires a spirit of aggression or defiance against authorities. Instead, his conduct amounted to resistance and serious disobedience under Article 252, as he initially complied though resentfully, and his active resistance ceased once restrained. The Court emphasized that circumstances listed in Article 250 are aggravating factors, not elements that automatically elevate resistance to atentado.

Regarding Canillas, the Court found him guilty of serious disobedience for interfering and ordering the policemen to desist, abusing his authority as justice of the peace.

The Court rejected arguments that Chapters IV and V of Title 3, Book 2 of the Penal Code (on assaults against persons in authority) were obsolete under American rule, noting that these provisions remained applicable as they were not purely political laws but general penal statutes.

Disposition: Tabiana and Canillas were convicted of resistance and serious disobedience under Article 252, with corresponding penalties. The trial court’s judgment was modified accordingly.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.