pp v asuncion -the POs were assaulted and some were shot and killed

-a group was charged with subversion under ra 1700 and -due to this they where charged with complex crime of Direct
illegal possession of firearms under pd 1866 Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Homicide

-they aver that pd1866 is absorbed in ra 1700 -contends that the prosecution failed to allege that the accused
knew they were POs
-Private respondents, in their motion to quash, 4 argued that
the filing of two (2) separate informations for each of the i: DA w/ homicide or not?
accused violates the rule on double jeopardy, and that there
being only a single criminal intent, the other offense of illegal h: While the elements constituting the crime of Homicide were
possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives should be properly alleged in the two Informations and were duly
absorbed in the charge of violation of R.A. 1700 established in the trial, the said Informations, however, failed
to allege all the elements constitutive of the applicable form of
-tc judge granted the motion - the possession of firearms, direct assault. To be more specific, the Informations do not
ammunition and explosives to which all the accused are allege that the offenders/petitioners knew that the ones they
charged before this Court is a constitutive ingredient of the were assaulting were agents of a person in authority, in the
crime of subversion and, hence, absorbed by the same and exercise of their duty.
cannot be punished separately. Deadly weapons are needed
and necessary to generate the kind of force and violence to
accomplish the purpose of subversion.
Indubitably, the instant case falls under the second form of
direct assault. The following elements must be present, to wit:

h:

-Rising publicly and taking arms against the Government is the That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c)
very element of the crime of rebellion. 13 On the other hand, makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious
R.A. 1700 was enacted to outlaw the Communist Party of the resistance;
Philippines (CPP), other similar associations and its successors
because their existence and activities constitute a clear, That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;
present and grave danger to national security.
That at the time of the assault, the person in authority or his
-The first Whereas clause of R.A. 1700 states that the CPP is an agent (a) is engaged in the actual performance of official duties,
organized conspiracy to overthrow the Government, not only or (b) is assaulted by reason of the past performance of official
by force and violence but also by deceit, subversion and other duties;
illegal means. This is a recognition that subversive acts do not
only constitute force and violence (contra to the arguments of That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a
private respondents), but may partake of other forms as well. person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties;
One may in fact be guilty of subversion by authoring and
subversive materials, where force and violence is neither
necessary or indispensable. That there is no public uprising.

info

That on or about the 4th day of June 1995, at about 5:00 p.m.,
in Barangay Boot, Municipality of Tanauan, Province of
Batangas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together, acting in common accord and mutually
helping one another, Nestor while armed with an armalite rifle,
guelos v people with intent to kill and without any justifiable cause, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
-hearing gunshots coming from the house of guelos a group of and shoot with the said firearm the victims, SPO2 Andaya/P/C
police officers who were not in their uniforms came and Insp. Camacho;
investigated
That the said victims are bona fide members of the PNP
-upon they saw a group of men drinking. chief of police then assigned at Tanauan Police Station, and one of them was the
introduced himself then asked who fired the shots current Chief of Police of Tanauan, Batangas; and

-one of the drinking men taunted the officers then trouble That at the time of the incident, they were engaged in the
ensued performance of their official duties.
they introduced themselves. Nevertheless, the establishment of x x x any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as
the fact that the petitioners came to know that the victims an individual or as a member of some court or governmental
were agents of a person in authority cannot cure the lack of corporation, board or commission, shall be deemed a person in
allegation in the Informations that such fact was known to the authority. A barangay captain and a barangay chairman shall
accused which renders the same defective. also be deemed a person in authority.

A person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by

appointment by competent authority, is charged with the
exemplary damages granted judgment modified to homicide maintenance of public order and the protection and security of
only life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman
and barangay leader, and any person who comes to the aid of
persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in
authority.

By virtue of the above provisions, the police officers, as well as

del castillo v people the barangay tanods were acting as agents of a person in
authority during the conduct of the search. Thus, the search
-acting upon a suspicion that del castillo was engaged in selling conducted was unreasonable and the confiscated items are
shabu a search warrant was issued inadmissible in evidence.

-upon arrival at del castillo house one of the POs he saw Acquitted
petitioner run towards a small structure, a nipa hut, in front of
his house. Masnayon chased him but to no avail, because he
and his men were not familiar with the entrances and exits of
the place. They all went back to the residence of Del Castillo basilonia v villaruz
and requested his men to get a barangay tanod and a few
minutes thereafter, his men returned with two barangay f: accused were convicted for killing an atty. Almost two
tanods who searched the house of petitioner including the nipa decades passed from the entry of judgment, on May 11, 2009,
hut where the petitioner allegedly ran for cover. His men who private respondent Dixon C. Roblete, claiming to be the son of
searched the residence of the petitioner found nothing, but one the deceased victim, Atty. Roblete, filed a Motion for Execution
of the barangay tanods was able to confiscate from the nipa hut of Judgment.He alleged, among others, that despite his request
several articles, including four (4) plastic packs containing to the City Prosecutor to file a motion for execution, the
white crystalline substance. judgment has not been enforced because said prosecutor has
not acted upon his request.
-an info was filed against del castillo for violating ra 6425 and
was found guilty by rtc

-contends that the evidenced procured from the nipa hut is The determination of whether respondent trial court
inadmissible due to it being violative of the constitutional committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure (search excess of jurisdiction in granting a motion for execution which
warrant specifically designates or describes the residence of was filed almost twenty (20) years after a judgment in a
the petitioner as the place to be searched.) criminal case became final and executory necessarily calls for
the resolution of the twin issues of whether the penalty of
-OSG contends that the items seized were found in another imprisonment already prescribed and the civil liability arising
place not designated in the search warrant, the same items from the crime already extinguished. In both issues, petitioners
should still be admissible as evidence because the one who vehemently assert that respondent trial court has no more
discovered them was a barangay tanod who is a private jurisdiction to order the execution of judgment
individual, the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
searches and seizure being applicable only against government
authorities
ARTICLE 92. When and How Penalties Prescribe. - The
penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as
follows:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
h:
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;
-evidence inadmissible
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
-POs admit they sought help from the tanod
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the
Having been established that the assistance of the barangay penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years;
tanods was sought by the police authorities who effected the
searched warrant, the same barangay tanods therefore acted 4. Light penalties, in one year.
as agents of persons in authority. Article 152 of the Revised
Penal Code defines persons in authority and agents of persons
in authority as:
ARTICLE 93. Computation of the Prescription of Penalties.- The charged with multiple crimes of estafa. In 1986, Gonzales
period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from petitioned for the cancellation of Torres’ pardon. Hence, the
the date when the culprit should evade the service of his president cancelled the pardon. Torres appealed the issue
sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should before the SC averring that the Exec Dep’t erred in convicting
give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country him for violating the conditions of his pardon because the
with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or estafa charges against him were not yet final and executory as
should commit another crime before the expiration of the they were still on appeal.
period of prescription.
ISSUE: whether or not conviction of a crime by final judgment
of a court is necessary before the petitioner can be validly
rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his
ART. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. - The penalty of conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the balance of his
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall original sentence.
be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his
sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by HELD: In proceeding against a convict who has been
reason of final judgment. However, if such evasion or escape conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to have breached
shall have taken place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking the conditions of his pardon, the Executive Department has
doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using two options: (1) Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative
picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, Code, a purely executive act, not subject to judicial scrutiny, or
or through connivance with other convicts or employees of the (2) Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code, a judicial act
penal institution, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its consisting of trial for and conviction of violation of a
maximum period. conditional pardon.

Where the President opts to proceed under Section 64 (i) of

the Revised Administrative Code, no judicial pronouncement of
Elements of evasion of service of sentence are: (1) the offender guilt of a subsequent crime is necessary, much less conviction
is a convict by final judgment; (2) he "is serving his sentence therefor by final judgment of a court, in order that a convict
which consists in deprivation of liberty"; and (3) he evades may be recommended for the violation of his conditional
service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. pardon.
This must be so. For, by the express terms of the statute, a
convict evades "service of his sentence" by "escaping during Under art. 159 of the RPC, parolee or convict who is regarded
the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment." as having violated the provisions thereof must be charged,
That escape should take place while serving sentence, is prosecuted and convicted by final judgment before he can be
emphasized by the provisions of the second sentence of Article made to suffer the penalty prescribed.
157 which provides for a higher penalty if such "evasion or
escape shall have taken place by means of unlawful entry, by In the case at bar, President has chosen to proceed against the
breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by petitioner under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative
using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or Code. That choice is an exercise of the President’s executive
intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts or prerogative and is not subject to judicial scrutiny.
employees of the penal institution, * * *" Indeed, evasion of
sentence is but another expression of the term "jail breaking."

We, therefore, rule that for prescription of penalty of

imprisonment imposed by final sentence to commence to run,
the culprit should escape during the term of such
imprisonment.

the Court, therefore, rules against petitioners. For the longest

time, they were never brought to prison or placed in
confinement despite being sentenced to imprisonment by final
judgment. Prescription of penalty of imprisonment does not
run in their favor. Needless to state, respondent trial court did
not commit grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction
over the motion for execution and in eventually granting the
same.

torres

f: 1978, Torres was convicted of estafa. In 1979, he was

pardoned by the president w/ the condition that he shall not
violate any penal laws again. Should this condition be violated,
he will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law.
Petitioner accepted the conditional pardon and was
consequently released from confinement. In 1982, Torres was