GR Nos. 71 and 72 February 28, 1947 on the ground again.
on the ground again. As a result of these blows, Rhodes had hemorrhage and died at one thirty
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant-appellee,
v.
RAYMUNDO RELLIN, accused-appellant.
D. Santiago F. Alidio in representation of the appellant.
Auxiliary Attorney General Mr. Gianzon and Acting Attorney Mr.
Barromeo on behalf of the Government.
PABLO, J .:
Raymundo Rellin was accused of two crimes: ( a ) direct attack against an officer of authority
with homicide (criminal case No. 13) and ( b)) direct attack against an agent of authority
(criminal case No. 14), both of the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Quezon (Tayabas). At the
request of the parties, for the reason that the two crimes were committed not immediately after
the other, the two cases were jointly considered. Informed the defendant of the two complaints,
he pleaded not guilty. After the corresponding hearing, the Hon. Judge Del Rosario
pronounced sentence condemning the accused in the first case, not for the complex crime of
direct attack against an agent of authority with homicide, but for simple homicide only, to suffer
an indeterminate sentence that not to lose two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11)
days of correctional prison and not to exceed eight (8) years and one (1) day of major prison,
with the accessories, indemnify the heirs of the deceased Graciano Rodas in the amount of
P2,000 without subsidiary prison in case of insolvency, with payment of half of the preventive
prison suffered by the defendant in accordance with Article 29 of the Penal Code Revised, and
the payment of the costs of the trial, and in the second case, not by attack but by resistance to
an agent of authority, to the penalty of two months of major arrest and a fine of P200 and the
costs.
Facts that correspond to the first cause. The evidence on the record shows that Raymundo
Rellin was walking down Calle Tavera, in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, at around eleven o'clock on
the night of April 4, 1944, from his home and in the direction of the patrol's barracks. see the
neighborhood association boss, he saw three people with suspicious appearance, and he
shouted, asking, "Stop, who are you?" they replied "We are members of the party inspecting
the guards of the neighborhood association." Surprised or outraged, under the influence of the
"tuba", for the answer, since he was designated that night to inspect the guards of his
neighborhood, I ask them, "What kind of patrol?" They, without answering, they stopped; He
approached to recognize them: but as the first had a suspicious attitude, the defendant gave
him two punts that knocked him to the ground in the act. The other two who were behind, out of
fear, ran. Graciano Rodas, who was the name of the one who fell on the floor, sat up and
attacked the defendant by hitting him on his forearm. Then he snatched his gun, throwing it
away and immediately punching him until he lay on the ground again. As a result of these
blows, Rhodes had hemorrhage and died at one thirty in the afternoon of the following
day. That was the name of the one who fell on the ground, he got up and attacked the accused
by hitting him on his forearm. Then he snatched his gun, throwing it away and immediately
punching him until he lay on the ground again. As a result of these blows, Rhodes had
hemorrhage and died at one thirty in the afternoon of the following day. That was the name of
the one who fell on the ground, he got up and attacked the accused by hitting him on his
forearm. Then he snatched his gun, throwing it away and immediately punching him until he lay
MARCELO, Ma. Costa Rica|TORTS and DAMAGES|Asst. Ombudsman Cabras
in the afternoon of the following day.
Facts that constitute the second cause. The accused was sitting next to Rhodes, - ready to
punch him again if he got up, - when the Alfonso Formarejos and Alejandro Marquez
constabulary arrived, accompanied by Police Sergeant Raymundo Pelaez. Upon his arrival,
Formerejos said: "Do not run" and the defendant, standing up, replied, "I will not
run." Formarejos ordered him to raise his hands, to drop his weapons, to turn and four steps
forward. As a disciplined soldier, he obeyed all four orders, but had hardly taken the steps
when the two constabulary hit him in the back and head. By these blows I fell on the
unconscious floor and only regained consciousness at twelve o'clock the next day, when the
bell of the church was played, in the municipal jail of Sta. Cruz.
Due to the simple fact that Graciano Rodas was a municipal police officer, it must not
necessarily be inferred that the accused committed the crime of direct resistance against an
agent of authority. There is no evidence that Graciano Rodas was then exercising his position
as municipal police, and that the accused knew it. When the accused asked them, "Stop, who
are you ?," Rhodes replied, "We are members of the patrol inspecting the guards of the
neighborhood association." That answer did not indicate that it was municipal police. As the
accused was in that night the person in charge of inspecting the guards, it is not strange that
the arrival of three people of doubtful appearance caught his attention: he was justified to
parales and ask them who they were. That was not then Rodas patrol as a municipal police
reveals the fact that neither he, nor Leon Constantino had his respective club: Leon and
Gregorio, because they had no weapons, according to them, escaped from fear as soon as the
defendant unloaded punetazos against Graciano Rhodes. There is more, that night Graciano
Rhodes was wearing shorts and a shirt; I was not uniformed police. If it is true that Rhodes and
Constantine, together with Baguio, had already inspected several guards, because they have
not been able to name a single name of the guards inspected? Although it was a moonlit night,
the place where the event took place was dark in the shadows of the trees. The defendant did
not have the opportunity to meet Rhodes before unloading the punches. because they did not
have weapons, according to them, they escaped from fear as soon as the defendant unloaded
punching against Graciano Rodas. There is more, that night Graciano Rhodes was wearing
shorts and a shirt; I was not uniformed police. If it is true that Rhodes and Constantine,
together with Baguio, had already inspected several guards, because they have not been able
to name a single name of the guards inspected? Although it was a moonlit night, the place
where the event took place was dark in the shadows of the trees. The defendant did not have
the opportunity to meet Rhodes before unloading the punches. because they did not have
weapons, according to them, they escaped from fear as soon as the defendant unloaded
punching against Graciano Rodas. There is more, that night Graciano Rhodes was wearing
shorts and a shirt; I was not uniformed police. If it is true that Rhodes and Constantine,
together with Baguio, had already inspected several guards, because they have not been able
to name a single name of the guards inspected? Although it was a moonlit night, the place
where the event took place was dark in the shadows of the trees. The defendant did not have
the opportunity to meet Rhodes before unloading the punches. If it is true that Rhodes and
Constantine, together with Baguio, had already inspected several guards, because they have
not been able to name a single name of the guards inspected? Although it was a moonlit night,
the place where the event took place was dark in the shadows of the trees. The defendant did
not have the opportunity to meet Rhodes before unloading the punches. If it is true that Rhodes
and Constantine, together with Baguio, had already inspected several guards, because they
Page 1
have not been able to name a single name of the guards inspected? Although it was a moonlit
night, the place where the event took place was dark in the shadows of the trees. The
defendant did not have the opportunity to meet Rhodes before unloading the punches.
The statement of the accused that the secretary of the neighborhood association and that he
was in charge that night to inspect the guards of said association is not disproved. He cited the
names of the guards who were on duty to watch and were inspected by him.
The Sunday before the event, the accused had a dislike with Rhodes when he was on guard in
the cockpit: I ask him why he allowed people to be inside the wheel where the cockfight was
made, adding, "It's a shame of the salary that he gives you. " To this Rhodes replied, "You
have nothing to do with my obligation," adding, "Your day will come." Afterwards he challenged
the accused to a fight outside the cockpit: but he did not accept it because he could easily
defeat him. Rhodes was constitutional in nature. It is not strange that on that night Rhodes,
accompanied by two, wanted to take revenge for the offense. Inspire more trust and credit your
testimony than the witnesses of the accusation.
In order to commit the offense of attack, it is necessary to prove that the accused has
knowledge that the offended party is an authority or agent of authority in the exercise of his
office or on his occasion. (Article 148, Revised Penal Code.) Otherwise, the "characteristic and
determining element of said crime" will be violated. (Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain of
May 7, 1892.) "The crime of attack is characterized and determined by the attack, the use of
force or intimidation directed at the authority or its agents when they are in the exercise of their
charges, or with occasion of them, whenever the agent's intention or intention is to offend,
disparage or assault him. " (Judgment of June 27, 1901.)
The defense insists that Rhodes died of heart disease, a serious illness that can cause death
due to some physical or mental effort, worry, anxiety, anger, precipitation, excessive feeding,
lack of sleep or rest; that in the registry of the boxing games, although some players have
fallen unconscious due to the effect of the punching, there were no cases of death as a
necessary consequence; that it is impossible that you can only kill with the punches. The
present case is not strange: Rhodes was of weak constitution. Dr. Allarde stated that Rhodes
died from heart disease, and cardiac involvement - according to him - "is a state of heart
pressure, causing profuse haemorrhaging from trauma to the heart region." These
hemorrhages have been caused by "
In its judgment of October 29, 1887, the Supreme Court of Spain declared "that the accused is
responsible for all the consequences of his action when the complication of these originates in
the pathological conditions of the victim." In its judgment of February 6, 1890, I declare that "the
person who infers a damage is responsible for the consequences produced, that is, for its
result, if it is not proven that it has come about by virtue of an isolated act or event completely
alien to the criminal agent. " It is consistent jurisprudence that the one who infers injuries is
responsible for all the consequences of his criminal action as the death that ensues as a result
of such injuries. There is no evidence that the death of Rhodes was caused by any other
reason than the hemorrhage produced by the punchings given to him by the accused. Must be
responsible for the crime of homicide.
Two extenuating circumstances have in his favor the defendant: that of not having intended to
cause an illness as serious as that which occurred and that of having committed the offense
MARCELO, Ma. Costa Rica|TORTS and DAMAGES|Asst. Ombudsman Cabras
under the influence of the "tuba" and there is no evidence that it is habitual in the drunkenness,
nor does it appear that he has taken it for the purpose of committing a crime. The cordon
imposed on the accused in the first case by the lower court is in accordance with article 249 in
relation to article 64, rule 5 of the Revised Penal Code and the Law of Indeterminate Sentence.
There are two versions of what the defendant did when they arrived at the scene of the events:
the Formarejos and Marquez constabulary and the Pelaez police sergeant. The first one said
that the accused was on Rhodes giving him punching and the second, that he was mounted on
Rhodes tightening his neck. The complaint filed against the accused is for an attack against an
agent of authority. The lower court concluded that there was no such attack but a simple
resistance. Probably the witnesses of the accusation declared different and more serious facts
before the Justice of the Peace and before the Prosecutor that the facts that they later declared
in the Court of First Instance.
The five orders of the Formarejos conspiracy, according to him, were the following: (1) to raise
his hands, (2) to drop his weapons, (3) to turn (turn about face), (4) to give four steps and (5) to
be taken for arrest. Instead of submitting to arrest, the defendant attempted to snatch the
rifle. If the intent of the Formarejos conspiracy was to arrest the accused, why did he order him
to turn back and take four steps forward? Was it easier to arrest him being more than four
steps away from being face to face and within reach of the three policemen? Why did he have
to order the accused to be taken for arrest after he had turned his back and walked away? Was
it to tempt him to run away and shoot him later? These orders can give rise to many
cavils. They are enigmatic. They have no explanation. We believe that the statement of the
accused when he said that he was hit with rifle butts when he was taking the steps is more
worthy of credit, than the statements of the witnesses of the accusation. It was easier for the
constabulary to disable him walking and backs than being face to face. More than four steps
away and on his back, it was not easy for the defendant to snatch the Formarejos rifle. He had
to turn and run intact or jump towards Formarejos to be able to grab the cannon of the rifle and
not expose himself to a safe discharge. If he had the intention of snatching it, he would have
done it when he was near. The two constabulary, as good imitators of the Japanese soldiers,
wanted to render the defendant useless while backing orders. It is not strange that they, out of
fear or to act over-insurance, they have behaved like this: they received the warning that the
accused had knocked Rodas police with his hands only. There is no doubt that it was abuse of
superiority and not an attack against an agent of authority, what happened.
The sentence issued in the first case CA-RG No. 71 with costs is confirmed and the accused is
acquitted in the second case, CA-RG No. 72, with the costs ex officio .
Moran, Pres., Paras, Feria, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones and Tuason, MM., Are satisfied.
Page 2
Separate Opinions
HILADO, J., concurring:
I concur in the foregoing majority opinion in so far as it is not inconsistent with the few
additional considerations presently to be set forth in the belief that they would further
strengthen the conclusion reached by the majority.
In the case of United States vs. Smith (39 Phil., 533, 537), we said:
We think that the terms "person in authority" and "public officer" found in the Spanish Criminal
Code must be given to restricted meaning only to include persons who performed some of the
functions of the Government of the Philippine Islands.
In Carrington vs. United States (11 Phil., 806; [1908], 28 US, 1), the United States Supreme
Court said that:
As a soldier he (Carrington) was not an official of the Philippines, but of the United States.
And in People vs. Yboa (P. 420, ante ), we held that a captain of the United States Army in
charge of the Philippine Civil Affairs Unit (PCAU) No. 28 in Catbalogan, Samar, was not a
"person in authority" or a "public officer "within the meaning of article 148 of the Revised
Criminal Code. Hence, we held that right hand man Jose Claudio employed in said "PCAU" No.
28 was not an "agent of a person in authority," within the meaning of the same article.
If an officer of the United States Army, who was therefore an officer of the United States, was
considered, in the cited cases, as a "person in authority" or a "public officer," within the
meaning of the Spanish Penal Code , and if the right-hand man (to Filipino) of Captain Myden
in said "PCAU" No. 28 was not considered in the Yboa case as an "agent of a person in
authority," within the meaning of article 148 of the Revised Criminal Code, to my mind there
would be no sense in considering a member of the so-called Philippine Constabulary or of the
municipal police under the puppet government established here by the Japanese Army as an
"agent of a person in authority." It is evident that the "Government of the Philippine
Islands"government existing before the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Government after
its establishment and during its existence, and the Republic after independence. It could not
have been meant to include such a sham organization as the puppet regime that Japan set up
in these Islands. To punish Filipino citizen for the crime of attempt against an agent of a person
for authority assaulted such an employee of said puppet government, in the final analysis, to
punish him for attempting against the authority of the Japanese invaders themselves, because
even the majority opinion in Co Kim Cham Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon(75 Phil., 113, 128), said
that the ultimate source of the authority of the so-called Republic of the Philippines, like that of
the Philippine Executive Commission, was "the Japanese military authority and government." It
would be an abuse to the courts of this Republic to have the citizen of the same for allegedly
committed to alleged crime, in the final analysis, must be considered as having been against
the authority of the very nation had so unlawfully and barbarously attacked and invaded this
country. Soundly considered, the crime of assault against a person in authority, or an agent of
such person, and all offenses defined and punished by the Revised Criminal Code, are
criminalized because they are deemed to be committed against the authority of the State and
the sovereignty of the people , from whom "all government authority emanates" (Constitution,
MARCELO, Ma. Costa Rica|TORTS and DAMAGES|Asst. Ombudsman Cabras
Article II, section 1). This juridical basis underlying said provisions was totally wanting in the
case of said puppet government and of its officials and agents
G.R. Nos. L-66870-72 June 29, 1985
AGAPITO MAGBANUA, INENIAS MARTIZANO, CARLITO HERRERA, SR., PAQUITO
LOPEZ, AND FRANCISCO HERRERA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND SPECIAL CASES DIVISION),
EDUARDO, BUTCH, DIEGO AND NENA All Surnamed PEREZ, respondents.
Romulo A. Deles for petitioner.
Jose Valmayor for respondents.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
A joint decision was rendered in CAR Case Nos. 827, 828 and 829 of the defunct Court of
Agrarian Relations stationed in San Carlos City (Negros Occidental) because the six plaintiffs
who are the petitioners at bar all alleged that they are share tenants of the defendants; that the
defendants diverted the free flow of water from their farm lots which caused portions of their
landholdings to dry up to their great damage and prejudice: and that they were told by the
defendants' overseer to vacate their respective areas for they could not plant palay any longer
due to lack of water. They prayed that they be declared as leasehold tenants and that the
defendants be ordered to pay attorney's fees and different kinds of damages.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs as follows:
WHEREFORE, coherent with the foregoing, this Court, in judgment, hereby:
1) Declares all the plaintiffs in the above-entitled cases to be maintained as agricultural lessees
in peaceful cultivation in their respective landholdings;
2) Prohibits defendants from closing and/or disrupting the free flow of water supplying plaintiffs'
landholdings;
3) Declares the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued on February 23, 1982 to be permanent;
4) Orders plaintiffs to seek the assistance of the Ministry of Agrarian Reforms in the fixing of
their lease rentals;
5) Orders the defendants to pay all the six plaintiffs in the above-entitled cases individually
moral and exemplary damages in the sum of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS, each;
6) Orders the defendants to pay the attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00; and
7) Dismiss all other claims and counterclaims of the parties for lack of merit (Rollo, pp. 28-29.)
Page 3
The defendants appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court which in turn rendered the
following judgment:
WHEREFORE, with the modification above indicated, deleting the award of moral and
exemplary damages and attorney's fees, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in
all other respects, with costs against appellants. (Rollo, pp. 37-38.)
In this petition, the prayer is for the reinstatement of the moral and exemplary damages and the
attorney's fees which had been awarded by the trial court on the ground that the Intermediate
Appellate Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in eliminating them.
However, We are not inclined to sustain the award of moral and exemplary damages, as well
as attorney's fees. There is no evidence showing that, in dealing with plaintiffs, defendants
acted fraudulently or in bad faith. There is no showing either that attorney's fees are
recoverable under Art: 2208, Civil Code. (Rollo, P. 37.)
Under the facts of the case, the plaintiffs (now petitioners) are entitled to a measure of moral
damages. Article 2219 of the Civil Code permits the award of moral damages for acts
mentioned in Article 21 of the same code and the latter stipulates that: "Any person who wilfully
causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage."

In awarding damages and attorney's fees, the trial court said:
This Court has likewise noted the manifestation submitted by plaintiffs on June 3, 1982 wherein
they have attached photographs of their dried-up landholdings and wilted palay crops. The
allegations in this pleading and the accompanying pictures were never rebutted by the
defendants.
It appears that the petitioners were denied irrigation water for their farm lots in order to make
them vacate their landholdings. The defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights and caused
prejudice to the latter by the unjustified diversion of the water.
The petitioners are also entitled to exemplary damages because the defendants acted in an
oppressive manner. (See Art. 2232. Civil Code.)

In view of this circumstances, this Court holds the opinion that between the period of the It follows from the foregoing that the petitioners are also entitled to attorney's fees but the size
inspection by the PC Team on February 24, 1982 and June 13, 1982 when plaintiffs' of the fees as well as the damages is subject to the sound discretion of the court.
manifestation was filed, there has been complete closure of water supplying plaintiffs'
landholdings which resulted to the drying up of the same that greatly hampered the healthy WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the decision under review is modified and each of the
growth of the palay crop. This Court does not believe that the disruption of the water supply plaintiffs is entitled to the following to be paid by the defendants jointly and severally:
which led to the very poor harvest is due to the fault/negligence of the plaintiffs.
Moral damages — P1,000.00
Under the law, the landowner has an obligation to keep the tenant in the peaceful and
continuous cultivation of his landholding. A disturbance of possession, such as the act Exemplarly damages — 500.00
complained of, is violative of the law.
Attorney's fees — 1,000.00
The Honorable Court of Appeals, thru Associate Justice Porfirio V. Sison, in June 23, 1982, P2,500.00
promulgated a decision in the case of Buenaventura Garcia, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Eduardo
Jalandoni, Salud Garcia and Chester Garcia, defendant-appellees, which ruling is relevant to The costs shall be assessed against the private respondents.
the above-entitled cases when the said Honorable Court state:
SO ORDERED.
The law forbids the use of tenants like balls on a pool table, whacked and volleyed and
pocketed at the whim and caprice of the player, or their positions placed on the auction block
like slaves to be sold to the highest bidder. Such a calamitous situation erode wholehearted
dedication to the soil; it is destructive of the system itself, as such an attitude takes away the
freedom the emancipated tenants won under the aegis of the New Republic.

The plaintiff-appellant is entitled to moral damages in the sum of P5,000.00 and exemplary
damages in the further sum of P5,000.00 to be paid by defendant Eduardo Jalandoni. Let this
be a warning to those who flout the lofty purpose of the agrarian reform program.

Plaintiffs have all their legal rights to protect their interests under the law in filing these cases,
for what the defendants have done to them, and as such they are entitled attorney's fees.
(Rollo, pp. 27-28.)

Upon the other hand, in deleting the questioned award the Intermediate Appellate Court said:

MARCELO, Ma. Costa Rica|TORTS and DAMAGES|Asst. Ombudsman Cabras Page 4