(73) People vs.
Hernandez
Case of slight offense of resistance to an agent of person in authority
and arbitrary detention
Facts:
The provincial treasurer of Camarines Norte, acting under
instructions from the Collector of Internal Revenue, asked for and
obtained from the justice of the peace of Daet the writ of execution
which was delivered to the provincial sheriff Amador E. Gomez for
execution. The writ of execution is to enforce the tax claim of the
Collector of Internal Revenue.
The aforesaid provincial sheriff, on August 24, 1932, sent his deputy
Jose Rada to the office of GABRIEL HERNANDEZ, provincial
governor of Camarines Norte. GABRIEL HERNANDEZ told the said
deputy sheriff that he had no money with which to pay it at that
moment but he promised to do so within thirty days. Jose Rada
informed Gabriel that it was necessary for the latter to satisfy the
judgment, otherwise his personal property would be attached in
accordance with the requirement of the said writ. Hernandez then
proposed that the sheriff attach the stripping machine outfit which he
had on his hacienda, a motor-propelled sail boat and a banca
belonging to him, all of which had cost him more than one thousand
fifty pesos but which he appraised at only six hundred forty pesos on
that occasion, which sum was double the amount of the judgment in
question. To that effect, he delivered to the deputy sheriff a list of
said properties. Despite this fact, Hernandez requested the sheriff to
suspend the execution. Notwithstanding this, the deputy sheriff,
acting under the provincial sheriffs orders, appeared at the
appellants house with several policemen between 2 and 3 oclock on
the afternoon of August 27, 1932, and again informed Hernandez of
his intention to attach his personal property, particularly the piano
and chairs which he had in his house, if he did not pay the amount of
the afore-mentioned judgment. Believing the presence of so many
policemen in his house as unnecessary, the appellant ordered those
who accompanied the deputy sheriff to go back and attend to their
own duties.
the sheriff went to the lieutenant of the Constabulary at Daet, and
later to Captain Legaspi of the said organization who happened to
be in the barrio of Dogongan at that time to ask for soldiers to help
him enforce the writ of execution. He failed to obtain such help. he
applied to the municipal president for police assistance. He was
given three men with whom the deputy sheriff, under orders from the
said provincial sheriff, again returned to the Hernandezs house for
the same purpose. The deputy sheriff still failed to execute such writ.
The provincial sheriff accompanied with the chief of police went to
Hernandez house. Unable to control her temper under the
impression that her piano and chairs were to be seized by the
provincial sheriff, the said wife of Hernandez made more or less
insulting remarks to the sheriff. He forced open the door by breaking
the bar thereof, he seized one of the chairs.
In view of the provincial sheriffs actions, Hernandez approached and
held him by the arm with one hand while with the other he wrested
the chair said sheriff wanted to deliver by force to one of the several
laborers who were standing by for his orders, under the house. Many
people gathered about the appellants house to see and witness how
the governors property was to be attached inasmuch as the news
had spread that the sheriff Amador E. Gomez would go there that
afternoon to do so.
Hernandez called the chief of police, who was on the street, and
ordered him to arrest the sheriff on the alleged ground that the latter
was committing an act of trespass to dwelling. Said officer of the law
made the arrest not only because he was ordered to do so by his
superior, but also because he really believed that the sheriff was
committing an abuse in the house in question by carrying away a
chair by force. The sheriff was then detained.
Issue:
Whether or not Hernandez is guilty of slight offense of resistance to
an agent of person in authority.
Ruling:
No. Under other circumstances, the appellants act in trying to duties as such, and the rule in such cases is that the victim of the
prevent the sheriff from carrying away his piano and chairs, in the abuse has a legitimate right to defend himself. (People v. Chan Fook,
manner above stated, would constitute a slight offense of resistance 42 Phil., 230.) The appellant did nothing more than act in that sense
to an agent of a person in authority, but under the circumstances and therefore he cannot be guilty of resistance. His was an act of
which led to the commission thereof, it cannot be considered as legitimate self-defense.
such. There is no question that a sheriff may attach the property of a
judgment or execution debtor if he is clothed with the necessary
authority under a judicial writ, as provided for in section 453 of Act
No. 190. However, it should not be construed to mean that, having
discretion in choosing the property to be attached, he should
necessarily levy upon such property as is valued by the execution
debtor, particularly when the latter places other property at his
disposal, as was done herein, the value of which is greatly in excess
of the amount of the judgment under execution. The aforesaid
provision does not forbid the execution debtor, in case he has
sufficient property to answer for the payment of the judgment, to
point out to the sheriff which of such property should be attached and
sold to satisfy the judgment with the proceeds thereof. On the
contrary, it may be inferred from the provisions of section 457 of the
aforesaid Act that there would be no irregularity committed by such
procedure.

The provincial sheriff really acted arbitrarily and with malice, and
even more than that, with unnecessary severity and abuse. The time
requested by the appellant for the suspension of his action was only
a little more than one day, which was the intervening period of time
between Saturday night, when the incidents which gave rise to the
two criminal processes under consideration occurred, and the
following Monday, when, pursuant to the suggestion of the Collector
of Internal Revenue, his judgment creditor of which suggestion said
sheriff was fully aware, he would be able to apply to the justice of the
peace court which issued the writ, for even a temporary suspension
of the writ in question, inasmuch as said judgment creditor was
agreeable thereto.

In view of the foregoing proven facts, we are of the opinion that the
provincial sheriff exceeded his authority in the performance of his
(74) People vs. Rillorta
Facts
Upon the report of Edita Doton, a daughter of the victim, Sgt. Juan
Serquina and Sgt. Socrates of the 151st PC Company in Tayug,
Pangasinan, went to Barangobong, Natividad, Pangasinan, to
investigate the death of Barangay Captain Emiliano Doton whom
they found lying dead in a creek, his face down with multiple hack
wounds all over his body.
A bystander, Hipolito Cagio, volunteered the information that the
assailants were "the Rillortas, father and sons.
Sgt. Serquina went to the house of the Rillortas across the creek and
called the name of the accused Pascual Baylon Rillorta who came
out and surrendered a bolo with a sharp-pointed tip. As he did not
believe that it was the only weapon that the killers used in the
commission of the crime, Serquina and his companions searched the
house. Sgt. Socrates recovered another bolo with a rounded tip
tucked in the roof of the house.
After removing the cadaver of the victim from the water and taking
pictures, the PC officers took Pascual Baylon Rillorta and his son,
Wesley, to the PC Headquarters where the latter (Wesley), after
being apprised of this constitutional rights, gave a written statement
admitting that he hacked the victim. The Rural Health Physician, Dr.
Bienvenido Allas, who autopsied the cadaver, found thirty-two (32)
bolo wounds on the victim's head, neck, abdomen and arms.
A prosecution witness, Romy Ramos while they were threshing the
palay stock near the premises of the victim, the accused Pascual
Baylon Rillorta accosted Ramos and threatened him with a gun
saying "Damn you, you better go home or I'll kill you here"
On their way home to Bo. Calapugan, Ramos and his companions,
Romy Elizaga and Ceferino Facon, aboard their thresher, were
stopped by the three accused. Pascual Rillorta, who was armed with
a bolo, warned them not to return to thresh palay in barrio
Barangobong. Barangay Captain Doton, who was following behind
Ramos' group, advised Pascual to let the threshing party pass. The
three (3) accused chased Doton. Upon overtaking him, they
surrounded him and pushed him toward the creek. Pascual Rillorta
hacked him with a bolo while his sons (co-accused Wesley and
Wilson) held Doton's hands. Doton yelled "I'm going to die, they are
going to kill me." Three accused are: PASCUAL BAYLON
RILLORTA, WESLEY RILLORTA and WILSON RILLORTA.
Barangay Captain Doton died.
Pascual Rillorta denied having killed Doton.
Wilson Rillorta's defense was an alibi. He alleged that on the night in
question, he went to Tayug with one Rogel to bring a tractor tire for
vulcanizing at Fred's shop, arriving there around 8:00 o'clock that
evening.
Issue:
Whether the crime is homicide or muder
Ruling:
Homicide. The first assignment of error is meritorious. The assault
upon the deceased was not attended by treachery for it was
preceded by a heated exchange of words between the appellants
and the deceased (People vs. Ibanez, 56 SCRA 210; People vs.
Quiban, 131 SCRA 459; People vs. Visagar, 93 Phil. 319). It cannot
be said that the deceased was caught completely by surprise when
the accused took up arms against him. Therefore, the killing was only
homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, not murder.
Whether the brgy. Captain is engaged in the performance of his
official duties and the crime should be direct assault
Yes. The crime was a complex one of homicide with assault upon a
person in authority under Articles 249 and 148 of the Revised Penal
Code in view of the circumstance that when Doton intervened to
prevent a violent encounter between the accused and Ramos' group
(pp. 12, 14 & 25, t.s.n., Dec. 19, 1979), he was discharging his duty
as barangay captain to protect life and property and enforce law and
order in his barrio.
Under Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code and P.D. 299, a Soriano, not Doton, who invited him to thresh palay in Barrio
barangay captain (formerly a "barrio lieutenant") is a person in Barangobong
authority (U.S. vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 385).

Doton did not have any financial interest in the work of Ramos'
group. Ramos himself disclosed that it was a certain Mrs.