Topic: Resistance and Serious Disobedience

Edmund Sydeco y Sionzon, petitioner vs. People of the Philippines, respondent

Velasco, Jr. J.

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The prosecution’s version of the incident, as summarized in and/or as may be deduced from, the CA decision now on appeal is as follows:

On or about June 11, 2006, P/Insp. Manuel Aguilar (Aguilar), SPO4 Bodino, PO3 Benedict Cruz III and another officer were manning a checkpoint established along
Roxas Boulevard corner Quirino Ave., Malate, Manila when, from about twenty (20) meters away, they spotted a swerving red Ford Ranger pick-up with plate number
XAE 988. Petitioner was behind the wheel. The team members, all in uniform, flagged the vehicle down and asked the petitioner to alight from the vehicle so he could
take a rest at the police station situated nearby, before he resumes driving. 11 Petitioner, who the policemen claimed was smelling of liquor, denied being drunk and
insisted he could manage to drive. Then in a raised voice, petitioner started talking rudely to the policemen and in fact yelled at P/Insp. Aguilar blurting: “ P...g ina mo,
bakit mo ako hinuhuli.” At that remark, P/Insp. Aguilar, who earlier pointed out to petitioner that his team had seen him swerving and driving under the influence of
liquor, proceeded to arrest petitioner who put up resistance. Despite petitioner’s efforts to parry the hold on him, the police eventually succeeded in subduing him who
was then brought to the Ospital ng Maynila where he was examined and found to be positive of alcoholic breath per the Medical Certificate issued by that hospital,
marked as Exh. “F.” Petitioner was then turned over to the Malate Police Station for disposition.

Petitioner, on the other hand, claimed to be a victim in the incident in question, adding in this regard that he has in fact filed criminal charges for physical injuries,
robbery and arbitrary detention against P/Insp. Aguilar, et al. In his Counter-Affidavit13 and his Complaint-Affidavit14 appended thereto, petitioner averred that, in the
early morning of June 12, 2006, he together with Joenilo Pano and Josie Villanueva, cook and waitress, respectively, in his restaurant located along Macapagal Ave.,
Pasay City, were on the way home from onboard his pick-up when signaled to stop by police officers at the area immediately referred to above. Their flashlights trained
on the inside of the vehicle and its occupants, the policemen then asked the petitioner to open the vehicle’s door and alight for a body and vehicle search, a directive he
refused to heed owing to a previous extortion experience. Instead, he opened the vehicle window, uttering, “plain view lang boss, plain view lang.” Obviously irked by
this remark, one of the policemen, P/Insp. Aguilar, as it turned out, then told the petitioner that he was drunk, pointing to three cases of empty beer bottles in the trunk
of the vehicle. Petitioner’s explanation about being sober and that the empty bottles adverted to came from his restaurant was ignored as P/Insp. Aguilar suddenly boxed
him (petitioner) on the mouth and poked a gun at his head, at the same time blurting, “P...g ina mo gusto mo tapusin na kita dito marami ka pang sinasabi.” The
officers then pulled the petitioner out of the driver’s seat and pushed him into the police mobile car, whereupon he, petitioner, asked his companions to call up his wife.
The policemen then brought petitioner to the Ospital ng Maynila where they succeeded in securing a medical certificate under the signature of one Dr. Harvey
Balucating depicting petitioner as positive of alcoholic breath, although he refused to be examined and no alcohol breath examination was conducted. He was thereafter
detained from 3:00 a.m. of June 12, 2006 and released in the afternoon of June 13, 2006. Before his release, however, he was allowed to undergo actual medical
examination where the resulting medical certificate indicated that he has sustained physical injuries but negative for alcohol breath. Ten days later, petitioner filed his
Complaint- Affidavit against Dr. Balucating, P/Insp. Aguilar and the other police officers.

Petitioner also stated in his counter-affidavit that, under Sec. 29 of R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the procedure for dealing with a traffic
violation is not to place the erring driver under arrest, but to confiscate his driver’s license.

Hence the petition.

Issue:
1. WON CA erred in upholding the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the police
officers;
2. WON petitioners twin gestures be considered as resisting a lawful order.

Ruling:
1. Yes. The CA err in its decision. RA 4136 Sec. 29 provides that “Law enforcement and peace officers of other
agencies duly deputized by the director shall, in apprehending a driver for any violation of this act or any
regulations issued pursuant thereto, or of local traffic rules and regulations confiscate the license of the driver
concerned and issue a receipt prescribed and issued by the Bureau therefor which shall authorize the driver to
operate a motor vehicle for a period not exceeding seventy-two hours from the time and date of issue of said
receipt. The period so fixed in the receipt shall not be extended, and shall become invalid thereafter.”

In this case, the above provision was violated as the men manning the checkpoint in the subject area did not
demand the presentation of the driver’s license or issue any ticket or similar citation paper for traffic violation
as required on the provision. Instead, they ordered petitioner to step out of the vehicle, concluding that
petitioner is drunk arrested him and brought him to Manila Hospital for alcohol test. (Also, a violation to RA
4136, Sec. 28)
2. No. Petitioners twin gestures cannot be considered as resisting a lawful order. The two key elements of
resistance and serious disobedience punished under Art. 151 of the RPC are: 1. That a person in authority or his
agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender; and 2. That the
offender resists or seriously disobeys such person or his agent.

In this case, the second element of the above provision is missing. Petitioner’s act of exercising one’s right
against unreasonable searches to be conducted in the middle of the night cannot, in context, be equated to
disobedience let alone resisting a lawful order in contemplation of the above provision. It must be remembered
that Petitioner has not when flagged down, committed a crime or performed an overt act warranting a
reasonable inference of criminal activity and there is no reasonable suspicion of the occurrence of a crime that
would allow jurisprudence refers to as “stop and frisk” action. Thus, petitioners’ action cannot be consider as
seriously disobeying a person in authority.