People vs.

Perez
(G.R. No. L-21049. Dec. 22, 1923)
MALCOLM, J.:

FACTS:
Isaac Perez, the municipal secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon, and Fortunato Lodovice, a citizen of that
municipality, happening to meet on the morning of April 1, 1992, in the presidencia of Pilar,
they became engaged in a discussion regarding the administration of Governor-General Wood,
which resulted in Perez shouting a number of times: "The Filipinos, like myself, must
use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for
he has killed our independence." Charged in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon with a
violation of article 256 of the Penal Code having to do with contempt of ministers of the Crown
or other persons in authority, and convicted thereof, Perez has appealed the case to this court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused violated Article 256 of the Penal Code

HELD:
NO. Article 256 was abrogated completely by the change from Spanish to American sovereignty
over the Philippines, Libel Law had the effect of repealing so much of article 256 as relates to
written defamation, abuse, or insult, and that under the information and the facts.
Perez has uttered seditious words. He has made a statement and done an act which tended to
instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes. He has made a statement and
done an act which suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies. He has made a statement and
done an act which tended to stir up the people against the lawful authorities. He has made a
statement and done an act which tended to disturb the peace of the community and the safety or
order of the Government. All of these various tendencies can be ascribed to the action of Perez
and may be characterized as penalized by section 8 of Act No. 292 as amended.
 People vs. Lol-lo
(G.R. No. 17958. Feb. 27, 1922)
Malcolm. J.:

FACTS:
On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left matuta, a Dutch possession, for Peta, another Dutch
possession. In one of the boats was one individual, a Dutch subject, and in the other boat eleven
men, women, and children, likewise subjects of Holland. After a number of days of navigation,
at about 7 o'clock in the evening, the second boat arrived between the Islands of Buang and
Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. There the boat was surrounded by six vintas manned by twenty-
four Moros all armed. The Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat, too for
themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two of the women by
methods too horrible to the described. All of the persons on the Dutch boat, with the exception of
the two young women, were again placed on it and holes were made in it, the idea that it would
submerge, although as a matter of fact, these people, after eleven days of hardship and privation,
were succored violating them, the Moros finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession. Two of
the Moro marauder were Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women, and Saraw. At Maruro the
two women were able to escape.

Judgment was rendered finding the two defendants guilty and sentencing each of them to life
imprisonment (cadena perpetua), to return together with Kinawalang and Maulanis, defendants
in another case, to the offended parties, the thirty-nine sacks of copras which had been robbed, or
to indemnify them in the amount of 924 rupees, and to pay a one-half part of the costs.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Art 153 to 156 of the Penal Code is still in force

HELD:
YES. The general rules of public law recognized and acted on by the United States relating to the
effect of a transfer of territory from another State to the United States are well-known. The
political law of the former sovereignty is necessarily changed. The municipal law in so far as it is
consistent with the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or the characteristics and
institutions of the government, remains in force. As a corollary to the main rules, laws subsisting
at the time of transfer, designed to secure good order and peace in the community, which are
strictly of a municipal character, continue until by direct action of the new government they are
altered or repealed.
 U.S. vs. Bautista
(G.R. No.L-10678. Aug. 17, 1915)
Johnson, J.:

FACTS:
In the month of November, 1914, an order of arrest was issued for the defendant and placed in
the hands of the chief of police of the municipality of Gerona. On or about the 15th of
November, the chief of police, accompanied by another policeman, went to the house where the
defendant was staying for the purpose of making the arrest. Upon arrival at the house, inquiry
was made of some of the occupants whether or not the defendant was there. Upon being
informed that he was in the house, the policeman who accompanied the chief of police entered
the house without permission and attempted to arrest the defendant without explaining to him the
cause or nature of his presence there. The defendant, according to the declaration of the chief of
police, resisted the arrest, calling to his neighbors for assistance, using the following language:
"Come here; there are some bandits here and they are abusing me." Many of his neighbors,
hearing his cry, according to the testimony of the chief of police, immediately came to his
assistance and surrounded his house.

The policeman further testified that he then informed the defendant that he came there for the
purpose of arresting him, and the defendant asked him if he had an order of arrest, which
question was answered by the policeman in the affirmative. Said policeman further testified that
immediately after he had notified the defendant that he was a policeman and had an order of
arrest, the defendant submitted to the arrest without further resistance or objection.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime of assault upon agent of authorities and
insulting them

HELD:
NO. The whole record shows that the resistance given by the defendant was done under the
belief that the persons who had entered his house were tulisanes. The record also shows, by the
declaration of the witnesses for the prosecution, that as soon as he had been informed that they
were officers of the law, armed with an order of arrest, he peaceably submitted and accompanied
them. We do not believe that the law contemplates the punishment of persons for resistance of
the authorities under circumstances such as those which are disclosed in the present case. If the
defendant believed that those who had entered his house were, in fact, tulisanes, he was entirely
justified in calling his neighbors and making an attempt to expel them from his premises.