Category: Criminal law

Criminal law, Rules of Court

For everyone’s peace of mind

alma7.jpg    

Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema. 94 Degrees in the Shade. 1876. Oil on canvas. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK. Right-clicked from www.abcgallery.com

     

         Resistance to or disobedience of a person in authority:      

         

           In the dialogue between the PNP and media organizations yesterday, the PNP through DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno said that the media persons who did not heed the “request” or “order” of the PNP to leave the Pen last November 29 when asked to do so by PNP NCR Director Geary Barias, were “guilty of violating the Revised Penal Code”.                 

          He did not specify the exact provision, but for everyone’s peace of mind, here’s the provision on “resistance to or disobedience of a person in authority” and the case law on the matter; they probably asked their legal assistants to scour criminal codal provisions and found something that they thought they could use; what they forgot or did not know was: you have to look at the case law on those provisions, most if not all of those provisions have been decided before by the Supreme Court:            

             “Revised Penal  Code. Art. 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 500 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 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.”              

               What is the crime of “resistance to or disobedience of a person in authority”?                  

          (I’m using the book of former Justice Ramon C. Aquino because he uses case law; you’re on safe ground if you have case law behind you.)            

               All cases from “The Revised Penal Code” by Ramon C. Aquino:                 (by the way,  teachers, professors, lawyers when performing their official duties are considered “persons in authority” . Big smile.   That’s in the Revised Penal Code, Article 152 as amended by PD 299 and BP 873.)                 

           The question really is: whether those who refused to leave the hotel after being asked to do so by the police, committed the crime of resistance to or disobedience of a person in authority:              

              People vs. Fausto Aquino, 46 Phil. 50 cited in Aquino: defendant constabulary agent’s wife was being arrested by soldiers in connection with a jueteng game; and defendant closed his fist and facing one of the officers shouted several times: “You should behave like a gentleman. You should know how to make an arrest.” The Supreme Court held: He was not guilty of any crime. “A bellicose attitude given before any actual physical encounter occurs is not a crime. Raising one’s voice in protest is not a crime. Should the courts convict everyone who loses his temper or who speaks shrilly and violently, the prisons would be crowded to overflowing with citizens and officials who engage in excited debates, and the courts might find it difficult to function. Courts determine a question of law, not of physical culture or elocution.”           

            People vs. Maneja, CA-GR No. 7348 Feb. 16, 1852, supra. : The accused refused to go with the mayor and the policeman to the municipal building for further investigation,  because he wanted to avoid the embarrassment of being seen by many persons there. The Supreme Court held there was no crime committed.               

           People vs. Fernandez and Quintos, CA 46 OG 1089, supra: The accused refused to vacate the auditorium even on orders of the governor because the police inspector had allowed them to occupy it. Held: They acted on a mistake of fact and cannot be guilty of disobedience.              

           People vs. Panaligan, 14 Phil. 46, supra: The defendant sinamay vendor, had an altercation with a customer, and a policeman intervened. Defendant told the cop not to intervene in private affairs. Held: Defendant was not guilty of resistance.               

          People vs. Veloso, 48 Phil. 182, supra: Where the police by means of a John Doe search warrant raided a gambling den, arrested 50 persons which included club manager Rep. Jose Veloso, who refused to go with them saying he was not John Doe; and the cops answered that he was; and the accused bit one cop on the right forearm and punched him; two other cops subdued him as he shouted epithets. Held: Guilty of resistance. “He had the right to protest but not to use violence against the policemen who did not abuse their functions in executing the search warrant.                   

          (And so the moral of the story is: you are not allowed to bite policemen and  punch them when there is no abuse on the part of the policemen.)               “The gravity of the disobedience to an order of a person in authority or his agent is measured by the circumstances surrounding the act, the motives prompting it, and the real importance of the transgression rather than the source of the order disobeyed.” (People vs. Chan Fook, 42 Phi. 230) where the accused, a Chinese,  after being allowed to land and leave the boat, returned the next day to get his baggage. A customs agent wanted to search him, and he struck the agent; a customs inspector intervened and explained to him (maybe in a manner that he understood better) that the search was proper, and the accused submitted to the search. Held: He was not guilty. He acted rightly in resisting the search which was improper.                   

        Coming now to the situation at hand, the media persons, by merely staying in the premises and using their cameras and tape recorders and ballpens and notebooks, and not doing anything else in blocking the policemen, such as barricading or punching them or biting them, or throwing furniture at them, cannot, as shown by these Supreme Court decisions, be considered as being in violation of the Revised Penal Code.                  

        The idea of the PNP and DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno is a crime of omission, or being punished for not helping the police, being punished for staying behind, being punished for getting holed up inside the function room with Trillanes because of the tear gas, being punished for being shocked with the sight of M-16’s pointed at them that they did not want to go out of the room right away.                

          You’ll have to create those crimes of omission. They’re not found in the Revised Penal Code or in the obstruction of justice law (PD 1829 which I can discuss later), or in any of our special laws.         

               The next time the policemen does this, on similar facts, it is, as in November 29, a violation of the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and siezures (arrests), and therefore, illegal.         

Criminal law, media law, Rules of Court

Legal opinion on obstruction of justice & the media

corot49.jpg

 Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot. Man in Armor or Seated Man at Arms. c. 1868-1870. 73 x 59 cm. Musée d’Orsay, Paris, France. Right-clicked from http://www.abcgallery.com

     

          The camera equipment and tapes of some media outfits were confiscated during the apprehending of media persons at the November 29 Manila Pen stand-off.

          Tapes and films are not contraband, i.e., not illegal per se, neither are they weapons used in the commission of the crime; they cannot be summarily confiscated without a court order.          

        Are media organizations legally required to surrender to the Philippine National Police or the CIDG their tapes of interviews and activities of their news subjects based on a request or “subpoena” of the PNP (without a court order)? Would failure to do so constitute “obstruction of justice”?        

          The pertinent provision of the “obstruction for justice” law (Presidential Decree 1829) is as follows:         

        quote “Sec. 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:   xxxx  (b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, WITH INTENT TO IMPAIR ITS VERITY, AUTHENTICITY, LEGIBILITY, AVAILABILITY, OR ADMISSIBILITY as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;” closed-quote (capitalization supplied).   xxxx         

         The essence of this provision is punishing any person who destroys evidence or hides evidence in order that those pieces of evidence could not be used in criminal investigations or official proceedings. Intent is determined from over acts. In other words, if the person destroys the evidence knowing it would be used in a criminal investigation or denies (hides) the existence of such objects altogether knowing they would be used in an investigation, then the law enforcement authorities can file a complaint for obstruction of justice. What is punished is the destruction of evidence or being involved  in cover-up.          Footage, tapes, and photographs that were produced or filmed or shot by the media outfit are properties of that company. Also, as recorded images of events, they fall in the category of documentary materials or documents, or “papers and effects”. Whenever the State or government or law enforcement agencies seek to examine the contents of such films and tapes, the search requires the consent of the owners. In other words, films and tapes are covered by the right to be secure in one’s person, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches; and a court order (or, otherwise,  consent from the owners) is required for the seizure or examination thereof. Without consent from the owners, law enforcement agencies need a court order to compel the owners to surrender the records.          But the owners of the tapes and films here are not just ordinary private owners, they are also media organizations; and as such they are bound by certain laws and a code of ethics.     

               One would be the Shield Law which states that reporters cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information relayed to them in confidence (the law says reporters of newspapers, magazines, or periodicals of general circulation; but in a digital multi-media world, I think this should be construed by our courts to refer to reporters in the news media, not just print). If the films and footage show images that would reveal sources which the reporters have been sworn not to divulge, then those films and footage, for containing the photographs and images of sources, are covered by the Shield Law.         

          Media organizations are also bound by their own code of professional ethics, among which are: not taking sides in the prosecution or defense of parties in criminal cases or armed hostilities, etc. Being forced to cooperate with the police in the capture of its enemies, absent a court order, may run into some obligations that journalists have been sworn to uphold under their code of ethics.        

           For all these reasons, a court order is required before a media organization can be compelled to surrender its tapes and films. Of course, the media company can always be consensual about it and surrender all its footage; but it must be sure it is not running into any of its obligations under the code of ethics, such as a breach of sources’ confidences.       

         I once asked a fiscal friend, “Bakit, wala naman kayong contempt powers, ah, bakit mo tinatawag na subpoena yan?” (“Why, you don’t have contempt powers; why do you call that a subpoena?”). And he got to thinking, and said, “well, yeah, we don’t have contempt powers, but it just means that if you don’t give us evidence in your favor, we will resolve the preliminary investigation based only on the evidence of the prosecution.”      

            I guess that warning applies when one is a suspect or a respondent in an investigation.      

        (when a third party or an innocent witness or a reporter becomes a suspect or respondent as a result of not surrendering their tapes without a court order, and without any other facts, it’s probably because he/ she had incurred the ire of the police and not because of any probable cause.)