G.R. No. 71 and 72; February 28, 1947
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. RAYMUNDO RELLIN, acusado-apelante.

FACTS

Raymundo Rellin was accused of two crimes: (a) direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority with homicide (Criminal Case No. 13) and (b) direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority (Criminal Case No. 14). The two cases were tried jointly. After trial, the Judge convicted the accused in the first case, not for the complex crime of direct assault with homicide, but for simple homicide only, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty. In the second case, he was convicted not for assault but for resistance to an agent of a person in authority.
The facts for the first case show that on the night of April 4, 1944, while Raymundo Rellin was walking on Tavera Street in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, he saw three suspicious-looking persons. He shouted, “Halt, who are you?” They answered, “We are members of the patrol inspecting the guards of the Neighborhood Association.” Surprised or indignant, and under the influence of “tuba,” and because he was the one designated to inspect the guards that night, he asked, “What kind of patrol?” Without answering, they stopped. He approached to recognize them, but as the first person had a suspicious attitude, the accused gave him two punches that knocked him to the ground. The other two ran away. The fallen person, Graciano Rodas, got up and attacked the accused, hitting his forearm. The accused then grabbed Rodas’s weapon, threw it away, and immediately gave him punches until he was lying on the ground again. As a consequence of these blows, Rodas had a hemorrhage and died the following afternoon.
The facts for the second case show that while the accused was sitting beside Rodas, ready to punch him again if he got up, Constabulary members Alfonso Formarejos and Alejandro Marquez arrived, accompanied by Police Sergeant Raymundo Pelaez. Upon arrival, Formarejos said, “Don’t run,” and the accused, standing up, answered, “I will not run.” Formarejos ordered him to raise his hands, drop his weapons, turn around, and take four steps forward. As a disciplined soldier, he obeyed all four orders, but as soon as he took the steps, the two constabulary men gave him blows with their rifle butts on his back and head. From these blows, he fell unconscious and only regained consciousness the next day at noon in the municipal jail.

ISSUE

The main issues involve: (1) whether the accused committed the crime of direct assault against an agent of a person in authority in the first case, given that the victim, Graciano Rodas, was a municipal policeman; (2) whether the accused is liable for homicide for the death of Rodas; and (3) whether the accused committed direct assault or resistance against an agent of a person in authority in the second case, considering the status of the arresting officers as members of the Constabulary or police under the Japanese-sponsored puppet government.

RULING

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment with modifications. In the first case, the accused was correctly convicted of simple homicide, not direct assault with homicide. For the crime of assault to exist, it must be proven that the accused had knowledge that the offended party was an authority or agent of authority in the exercise of his duties. The evidence did not show that Rodas was exercising his office as a municipal policeman at the time, or that the accused knew he was. Rodas’s answer that they were “members of the patrol inspecting the guards” did not indicate he was a municipal policeman. Furthermore, Rodas was not in uniform, did not carry his club, and the location was dark. The accused did not have the opportunity to recognize Rodas before punching him. The accused is, however, liable for homicide. Rodas died from a hemorrhage caused by the traumatic lesions from the punches. The accused is responsible for all consequences of his criminal act, even if the victim had a pre-existing heart condition. Two mitigating circumstances were present in his favor: lack of intent to cause so grave a wrong and having acted under the influence of “tuba,” with no evidence of habitual intoxication or intent to commit a crime.
In the second case, the accused was correctly convicted of resistance, not direct assault. However, the penalty must be set aside. The Constabulary members and the police sergeant who arrested him were agents of the Japanese-sponsored puppet government. The crime of assault against an agent of a person in authority is penalized because it is an offense against the authority of the State and the sovereignty of the people. This juridical basis was totally lacking for the puppet government and its officials. To punish a Filipino citizen for assaulting an employee of that government would, in effect, be punishing him for an offense against the authority of the Japanese invaders themselves. Therefore, the acts committed against such agents do not constitute the crime of assault upon agents of persons in authority as defined in the Revised Penal Code. The judgment of conviction in the second case is reversed, and the accused is acquitted of the charge.