Contempt or insult to public authorities, A14(2) Revised Penal Code

1. Concept

Contempt or with insult to public authorities, as an aggravating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code – refers to the circumstance when the offender committed the crime in such a manner.

a. Legal basis

Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. – The following are aggravating circumstances:

2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.

(Revised Penal Code)

2. Contempt or with insult to the public authorities

For the aggravating circumstance of contempt or with insult to public authorities, the offender committed the crime in such a manner.

a. Public authorities

In the 1981 case of People v. Rodil, it was held that public authorities include but not are not limited to persons in authority.

People v. Rodil, En Banc, G.R. No. L-35156, November 20, 1981, Per Makasiar, J.:

• The aggravating circumstance of contempt of, or insult to, public authority under paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code can likewise be appreciated in the case at bar.

• The evidence of the prosecution clearly established that Chief of Police Primo Panaligan of Indang was present as he was taking his lunch in the same restaurant when the incident occurred.

• As a matter of fact, the said chief of police was the one who embraced or grabbed the accused from behind, wrested the dagger from him and thereafter brought him to the municipal building of Indang. And appellant admittedly knew him even then as the town chief of police, although he now claims that he went to the municipal building to surrender to the chief of police who was not allegedly in the restaurant during the incident.

• While it is true that in the cases of U.S. vs. Rodriguez,…, People vs. Siojo …, and People vs. Verzo …, this Court ruled that the term public authority refers to a person in authority and that a PC lieutenant or town chief of police is not a public authority but merely an agent of a person in authority; there is need of re-examining such a ruling since it is not justified by the employment of the term public authority in aforesaid paragraph 2 of Article 14 instead of the term person in authority which is specifically used in Articles 148 and 152 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no extended reasoning of the doctrine enunciated in the aforesaid three (3) cases why the phrase public authority should comprehend only persons in authority. The lawmaker could have easily utilized the term “persons in authority” in the aforesaid paragraph 2 of Article 14 in much the same way that it employed the said phrase in Articles 148 and 1452. The lawmaker must have intended a different meaning for the term public authority, which may however include, but not limited to persons in authority.

• Under the decided cases, a municipal mayor, barrio captain, barrio lieutenant or barangay captain is a person in authority or a public authority. Even a public school teacher is now considered a person in authority under CA 578 amending Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code… So is the town municipal health officer…, as well as a nurse, a municipal councilor or an agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue…

• The chief of police should therefore be considered a public authority or a person in authority; for he is vested with jurisdiction or authority to maintain peace and order and is specifically duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend violators of the laws and municipal ordinances, more than the aforementioned officials who cannot prosecute and who are not even enjoined to arrest malefactors although specifically mentioned as persons in authority by the decided cases and by Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 1978 of June 22, 1957. The town chief of police heads and supervises the entire police force in the municipality as well as exercises his authority over the entire territory of the municipality, which is patently greater than and includes the school premises or the town clinic or barrio, to which small area the authority or jurisdiction of the teacher, nurse, or barrio lieutenant, respectively, is limited.

See related:

• Persons in authority, agents of persons in authority, A152 RPC

b. Presence of and not against public authorities

In order that the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime with insult to public authority be appreciated, it must not only be shown that the crime was committed in the presence of the public authority but also that the crime was not committed against the public authority himself. (People v. Rizal, En Banc, G.R. Nos. L-43487-89, February 26, 1981, Per Curiam)

People v. Tiongson, En Banc, G.R. No. L-35123-24, July 25, 1984, Per Concepcion, Jr., J.:

• The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities cannot also be appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela were the very ones against whom the crime were committed.

People v. Rizal, En Banc, G.R. Nos. L-43487-89, February 26, 1981, Per Curiam:

• [In] July, 1971, Dr. Pablito Abragan, a physician by profession, was the incumbent mayor of Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte. In the same month and year, Elpidio Zosa, Margarito Pongasi and Antonio Angeles, Jr., members of Kapatagan Police Force, were assigned as security of Mayor Abragan.

• On July 14, 1971 at about five o’clock in the afternoon, Mayor Abragan, Patrolmen Zosa and Pongasi were aboard the mayor’s Toyota jeep. They came from the municipal building and were going home to the mayor’s residence. Zosa was at the wheel, the mayor was seated at the front right side and Pongasi was seated at the back. At the junction turning to the road leading to the mayor’s residence, there was a sudden volley of gunfire followed by an explosion of a hand grenade all directed towards the Toyota jeep. Although already wounded, the three aboard the jeep were able to get down, seek cover and Cried to return fire. The jeep was in shambles. Its four tires were busted, the windshield was shattered with bullet holes, the rear glass windowpanes and the left headlight were shattered to pieces and the left and front of the jeep’s body were riddled with bullet holes.

Mayor Abragan was seriously wounded. For lack of adequate medical facilities in Kapatagan Valley, he was rushed to Iligan City, some ninety-two kilometers away. He did not reach the city alive.

• Mayor Abragan, the only public authority who figured in this ambuscade was one of the victims. Hence, We rule that the trial court erred in including commission of the crime with insult to public authority as one of the aggravating circumstances in this case.

People v. Tenorio, En Banc, G.R. No. L-15478, March 30, 1962, Per Padilla, J.:

• The claim that the aggravating circumstance of contempt of or insult to public authorities did not attend the commission of the crime is without merit. A public peace rally was going on at the place where the defendant stabbed Attorney Maximino Bello. Many people were present. Among the public authorities present were Acting Provincial Governor Manuel Villanueva, Mayor Isidoro Querubin of Caoayan, Judge Antonio Quirino and Municipal Secretary Benjamin Quindipan. All these were seated on an elevated stage easily seen or viewable by the public. The place of the rally and of the crime was a public plaza, directly opposite the municipal building of Caoayan. The defendant’s denial that public authorities were there present cannot be accepted. Moreover, a plea of guilty is an admission of the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information.

U.S. v. Rodriguez, En Banc, G.R. No. L-6344, March 21, 1911, Per Moreland, J.:

• The supreme court of Spain has held “that the circumstance of contempt of or insult to public authority, provided for in paragraph 16 of the Penal Code, can exist only when such authority is engaged in the exercise of its functions and he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person against whom the crime is committed in which that circumstance appears;” the court further saying that such aggravating circumstance was not present in the case before it “because D. Jose Torres, although he was municipal judge, was the object of the murder involved in that case.”

• In the case at bar, if the crime was committed with contempt of and insult to the public authorities, those authorities must have been the public authorities of Davao. But the persons exercising that authority were the very persons against whom, among others, the crime charged in this action was being committed.

3. Distinguished

The following should be distinguished.

a. Contempt or insult to public authorities, A14(2) RPC vs Public authorities discharging duties, A14(5) RPC

Factors	Contempt or insult to public authorities, A14(2) RPC	Public authorities discharging duties, A14(5) RPC
Effect	Generic aggravating circumstance (i.e. it applies to all crimes)	Generic aggravating circumstance (i.e. it applies to all crimes)
Overt Acts	Generic aggravating circumstance (i.e. it applies to all crimes)	Offender commits a crime where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties.

See related:

• Public authorities discharging duties, A14(5) Revised Penal Code

References

• Title I – Felonies and Circumstances which Affect Criminal Liability, Book I, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code