G.R. No. L-20247 April 24, 1967
JORGE VYTIACO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jorge Vytiaco was charged in three criminal cases before the Court of First Instance of Palawan arising from an incident on March 12, 1959, in Aborlan, Palawan. He was found guilty in all cases. On appeal, the Court of Appeals acquitted him in two cases (for grave threats and serious disobedience) but convicted him in Criminal Case No. 2351 (for assault upon an agent of a person in authority). The appellate court modified the charge and found him guilty of “resistance and serious disobedience” instead, sentencing him to arresto mayor and a fine. The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, show that Vytiaco had an altercation with Rosalino Jagmis at a market. PC soldier Esteban Gapilango, in plain clothes and on patrol, intervened. Vytiaco ran, met his brother-in-law carrying firearms, and when Gapilango approached to demand surrender of the weapons, a struggle ensued during which Vytiaco wrested Gapilango’s service pistol. Vytiaco pointed guns at Gapilango and Jagmis, warning them not to advance. Gapilango then identified himself as a PC soldier and asked for his gun back, but Vytiaco refused and went home. The gun was later returned by the vice mayor to whom Vytiaco surrendered it. The prosecution evidence did not show that Vytiaco knew Gapilango was a peace officer at the time of the disarming; Gapilango revealed his identity only afterward.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner Jorge Vytiaco guilty of the crime of resistance and serious disobedience.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Vytiaco. For a conviction of resistance or serious disobedience to a person in authority or their agent under Article 161 of the Revised Penal Code, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew the person resisted or disobeyed was a person in authority or an agent thereof, and that the agent was actually engaged in the performance of official duties. The facts as found by the Court of Appeals engendered serious doubt as to whether Vytiaco had the intention to resist and disobey a peace officer in the performance of his official duty, particularly since Gapilango did not identify himself as an officer until after the disarming, and Vytiaco could have reasonably believed Gapilango was helping his adversary. This doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.