PEOPLE VS EXEQUIEL ALIPIT (Art 143)
of a council under the presence of existence of legal defect
FACTS:
(Timeline) May 30, 1920
 Cabuyao, Laguna
 Defendant Alipit was municipal president and Alemus was
chief of police. People did not want to confirm said election
because president elect was a minor. Matter was referred by
Excutive Bureau to provincial board of Laguna for
investigation, which then transmitted papers to municipal
council presided by Alipit (who left the chair to VP)
 Municipal council held an extraordinary meeting which was
presided over VP Basa because the hour fixed had come
without President Alipit. While being held, Alemus entered
room saying he received order from President to arrest VP.
Basa answered he had not committed any crime. Dominador
Delfino, one of the councilors, persuaded Alemus to wait until
meeting was over.
 A few minutes after, Alipit took one of the revolvers in police
office. As Alipit fired revolver in air, he entered session room
of municipality of Cabuyao wherein municipal council was
holding a meeting presided by Manuel Basa (VP). Once inside,
Alipit said in loud voice to Alemus: “Arrest him. Arrest him.”
Pointing to Alemus. The latter obeyed order and held VP by
the arm. They arrested VP and compelled him to submit
himself to the arrest against latter’s will.
 Shortly afterwards, councilor Delfino asked president Alipit if
they could continue the meeting to the end, to which Alipit
answered: "Whoever dare continue holding the meeting will
be arrested." Councilors left. Alipit ordered the taking of the
books and documents used in the meeting and went to
Calamba where he asked and obtained from the Constabulary
three armed soldiers to protect him against any possible
attack from the vice-president Basa. By his order, the three
soldiers watched vice-president Basa and held him
incommunicated in the jail until about two o'clock in the
evening, when he was released by the provincial governor
who had come there.
 Trial court found defendant guilty of coercion through illegal
detention, sentenced them under article 497, in connection
with article 89 of RPC to 5 mos of AMayor and fine of 1500
pesetas
 Defendants appealed. Argued the illegality of meeting of
municipal council; fact that VP was presiding over it, finding
of the trial court that act constituted coercion and conviction
of Alemus while arguing that he was just obeying
ISSUE/S and RULING:
1) Whether or not the meeting held was unlawful
 Called at instance of 2 councilors, notices prepared for all the
members
 5 councilors were present, constituted a quorum with VP as
chair. President was absent when an attempt was made to
deliver to them the notice of that meeting
 (American Jurisprudence) Where members of a council are
absent from municipality, necessity of notice is dispensed
with.
2) Whether or not the meeting in which there was quorum
or absence of president was a meeting the disturbance
and interruption should be punished.
 No one has the right to dissolve through violence the meeting
which was not apparent.
 Any stranger must respect the meeting of the municipal
council which for the time being, raised the presumption that
not defect exists
 (case at bar) Presumption of legality should apply. The law
does not require personal service of notice (Admin Law). It is
sufficient that it be left in the domicile of the member of
council.
 It is improper for member of council to vote upon question
brought before council in which he is personally interested.
 We find no valid excuse, exempting the defendants from the
criminal responsibility arising from the acts committed by
them. With regard to the accused Victorio Alemus, it is no
valid justification for him to have acted by virtue of an order
received from is co-accused, because said order was unlawful.
 SC found no error in judgment appealed from EXCEPT regards
denomination of crime and imposition of penalty
o Information charged with crime of coercion; trial court
found them guilty of arbitrary detention as means to
commit coercion
o SC: law violated was Act. 1755, Sec 1
 Exequiel Alipit is hereby sentenced to three years'
imprisonment and Victorio Alemus to one years'
imprisonment, with the costs against them. The judgment
appealed from being thus modified, the defendants are found
guilty of a violation of section 1 of Act No. 1755 and
punishable with the penalty thereby provided. So ordered.
PERTINENT PROVISIONS:
Act 1755, Section 1:
“Any person who willfully or by force or fraud prevent or attempts
to prevent the meeting of the Philippine Commission or the
organizing or meeting of the Philippine Assembly or of any Insular
legislative body of the Philippine Islands hereafter established, or
the meeting or organizing of any provincial board or municipal or
township council, and any person who willfully disturbs the
Philippine Commission or the Philippine Assembly, or in Insular
legislative body of the Philippine Islands hereafter established, or
any provincial board or municipal or township council, while in
session, or who is guilty of any disorderly conduct in the
immediate view or presence of any such body tending to interrupt
the proceedings of such body or to impair the respect due to its
authority, shall be punished by a fine of not more than two
thousand pesos or by imprisonment for not more than five years,
or by both, in the discretion of the court.”
Article 143 of RPC:
Act tending to prevent the meeting of the Assembly and similar
bodies. — The penalty of prision correccional or a fine ranging
from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
person who, by force or fraud, prevents the meeting of the
National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or of any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or
committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city
or municipal council or board.