In their respective interviews, various government officials have been quoted as saying that those who violate the Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) currently in effect over the entire Luzon may be, among others, charged with crime of Resistance and Disobedience under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, which states -
"Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from Two thousand Pesos (P2,000) to Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) shall be imposed upon the offender." (Underscoring supplied)
While this provision is easy to understand, it still helps to revisit the law and the jurisprudence surrounding this offense. Thus, in this post, we will attempt to briefly discuss the salient points or concerns governing this offense, and clarify what kind of disobedience is punishable under the law.
First, who are persons in authority? As stated in Article 152 of the RPC, a "Person in Authority" is any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission, including barangay captains. Examples of these are our elected officials or heads of government agencies, and also the members of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID), who are the heads of their respective departments.
In addition to the foregoing, the RPC likewise states that teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges, and universities, as well as lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority.
Second, who are agents of persons in authority under the law? "Agents of Persons in Authority", on the other hand, are those persons who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, are charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as barangay kagawads, barangay tanods, and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority. Examples of these are our police officers or law enforcement agents, among others.
Third, what are the act/s punishable under Article 151 of the RPC? Article 151 of the RPC punishes unjustifiable disobedience of lawful orders of Persons in Authority or their Agents.
While this is self-explanatory, it is important to note that Article 151 actually penalizes two (2) kinds of disobedience: (a) Serious Disobedience; and (b) Simple Disobedience. The difference between the two lies in the gravity of the disobedience. What is serious, in turn, will depend on the circumstances surrounding the offense.
In any event, to be liable under Article 151 of the RPC, the law states that the Person in Authority or his/her Agent must be engaged in the performance of his/her duties and the Accused must have unjustifiably resisted or disobeyed the lawful order of the said person knowing that he or she is a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority.
The distinction above is significant as it serves to separate the offense from other kinds of disobedience, such as when a person in authority issues an order in his/her personal capacity or when the agent of a person in authority issues an unlawful order.
In Sydeco vs. People, G.R. No. 202692, 12 November 2014, the Supreme Court reiterated the two (2) key elements of resistance and serious disobedience under Article 151 of the RPC. These are: (a) That the person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender; and (b) that the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person or his agent.
Disobedience does not necessarily mean the absence of use of force. For example, in People vs. Breis and Yumol, G.R. No. 205823, 17 August 2015, the Supreme Court explained that the laying of hands or using physical force against persons in authority or their agents, when not serious in nature, also constitutes resistance or disobedience under Article 151 of the RPC.
What is important is that there is a lawful order issued by a Person in Authority in the performance of his/her duty and the said order was unjustifiably disobeyed or violated by the Accused.
Fourth, what are the penalties for violation Article 151 of the RPC? For Serious Disobedience, the law prescribes two (2) penalties and these are: (a) imprisonment for a period of one (1) month and one day to six (6) months; and (b) fine not exceeding P100,000pesos.
For Simple Disobedience, on the other hand, the Court has the option to impose any one of the two prescribed penalties, which are: (a) imprisonment ranging from one (1) day to one (1) month; or (b) a fine ranging from P2,000 to P20,000.
As mentioned above whether or not the resistance or disobedience is serious depends on the circumstances surrounding the offense.
Fifth, what is the difference between Direct Assaults (Article 148 of the RPC) and Resistance and Disobedience to a Person in Authority or the Agents of such person (Article 151 of the RPC)? As explained in People vs. Breis and Yumol, G.R. No. 205823, 17 August 2015, the difference lies in the gravity of the disobedience. If it is not serious in nature or if it is serious in nature but there was no force employed, then it is punishable under Article 151 of the RPC. However, if there is force, intimidation, or resistance and the nature of the same is serious, then it may constitute Direct Assault, which is punishable under Article 148 of the RPC.
The gravity of the disobedience, according to the Supreme Court, is measured by the circumstances surrounding the act, the motives that prompted it, and the importance of the transgression. Gravity also does not depend on the source of the order disobeyed. Thus, just because it was the Secretary of the Department of National Defense which gave the order, for example, does not make the violation a serious one. Conversely, just because it was the Barangay tanod which gave the order that was disobeyed does not make it case of simple disobedience.
Lastly, when is disobedience to a Person in Authority or his Agent justified? In the case of People vs. Chan Fook, 42 Phil 230 (1921), the Supreme Court held that when the person in authority or his agent exceeds his power, as for example, when they violate any recognized rights of a citizen, a person may resist the invasion, especially when it is clear and manifest, to wit -
"A person in authority, his agent or a public officer who exceeds his power cannot be said to be in the exercise of the functions of his office. The law the defines and establishes his powers does not protect him for anything that has not been provided for.
The scope of the respective powers of public officers and their agents is fixed. If they go beyond it and they violate any recognized rights of the citizens, then the latter may resist the invasion, especially when it is clear and manifest. The resistance must be coextensive with the excess, and should not be greater than what is necessary to repel the aggression.
The invasion of the prerogatives or rights of another and the excess in the functions of an office, are the sources that make for legitimate resistance, especially insofar as it is necessary for the defense of the persons or their rights in the matter provided for in article 8 of the Penal Code."
However, the resistance in this case must be commensurate to the excess and "should not be greater than what is necessary to repel the aggression". Otherwise, it may still constitute a violation of either Article 148 or 151 of the Revised Penal Code. Furthermore, and as explained in Gallego vs. People, G.R. No. L-18247, 31 August 1963, the illegality of the order or the "excessiveness" of the actions must be manifest, otherwise disobedience is not justified.
Applying the foregoing in the context of the ECQ, it is clear that violations of orders of the police or law enforcement agents manning our checkpoints as well as those officers enforcing the city-wide curfews may constitute an offense under Article 151 of the RPC. If a person is arrested based on this offense, it will be incumbent upon him or her to show that he/she is not covered by the curfew or, at the very least, have justifiable reasons for violating them.
However, the resistance in this case must be commensurate to the excess and "should not be greater than what is necessary to repel the aggression". Otherwise, it may still constitute a violation of either Article 148 or 151 of the Revised Penal Code. Furthermore, and as explained in Gallego vs. People, G.R. No. L-18247, 31 August 1963, the illegality of the order or the "excessiveness" of the actions must be manifest, otherwise disobedience is not justified.