Elements Pieces of Evidence Required Landmark Case Art. 144-Disturbance of Proceedings
Elements Pieces of Evidence Required Landmark Case Art. 144-Disturbance of Proceedings
EVIDENCE CASE
REQUIRED
Art. 144- 1. That there be a 1. It must be a (People vs. Calera,
DISTURBANCE OF meeting of meeting of a et al., C.A., 45
PROCEEDINGS Congress or legislative O.G. 2576)
any of its body or of Thus, where during
committees, provincial the meeting of
constitutional board or city municipal officials
commissions or or municipal called by the
committees or council or mayor, the chief of
divisions which is police kept on
thereof, or of disturbed. talking although he
any provincial 2. The complaint had been asked by
board or city or for the mayor to sit
municipal disturbance of down, and there
council or proceedings was a heated
board may be filed exchange of words
2. That the by a member among the mayor,
offender does of a legislative a councilor and the
any of the body. chief of police, and
following acts: in the ensuing
a. he disturbs confusion, the
any of such crowd watching the
meetings proceeding
b. he behaves dispersed and the
while in the meeting was
presence of eventually
any such dissolved, the chief
bodies in of police is not
such a guilty under Art.
manner as 131, but under Art.
to interrupt 287, for unjust
its vexation.
proceeding
s or to
impair the
respect due
it
b. That the
purpose of the
offender is to
prevent any
member of
Congress
from
—
i.
Attending
the meetings of
the
Congress or
any of its
committees
or constitutional
commissions,
etc.; or
ii.
Expressing
his opinions; or
iii.
Casting
his vote.
2. Arresting or
searching any
member while
Congress is in session,
except in cases
where such member
has committed a
crime punishable
under the Code by a
penalty
higher than prision
mayor.
Elements:
ART. 158- EVASION 1. That the 1. The offender must (Artigas Losada vs
OF SERVICE OF offender is a be a convict by final Acenas, 78 Phil
SENTENCE ON THE judgment. 228)
convict by final
OCCASION OF 2. The convict must These are
DISORDERS, judgement who is leave the penal considerations that
CONFLAGRATIONS, confined in a institution. more properly
EARTHQUAKES OR penal institution. 3. What is punished belong to the
OTHER CALAMITIES 2. That there is is not the leaving of legislative
the penal institution, department, should
disorder, resulting
but the failure of the an amendment to
from- convict to give the law be
a. conflagration, himself up to the proposed. They
authorities within 48 are likewise
b. earthquake, hours after the equitable pleas,
proclamation which the
c. explosion, or announcing the executive
passing away of the department could
d. similar catastrophe, calamity. properly entertain
or 4. If the offender fails in connection with
to give himself up, he petitions for parole
gets an increased or pardon of the
e. mutiny in which he
penalty. prisoners. The
has not participated. 5. If the offender special allowance
gives himself up, he for loyalty
3. That the is entitled to a authorized by
offender deduction of 1/5 of Articles 98 and 158
evades the his sentence. of the Revised
6. Mutiny in this Penal Code refers
service of his article implies an to those convicts
sentence by organized unlawful who, having
leaving the resistance to a evaded the service
superior officer; a of their sentences
penal institution
sedition; a revolt. by leaving the
where he is penal institution,
confined, on give themselves up
within two days. As
the occasion of these petitioners
such disorder are not in that
class, because
or during the they have not
mutiny. escaped, they
4. That the have no claim to
offender fails to that allowance. For
one thing, there is
give himself up
no showing that
to the they ever had the
authorities opportunity to
within 48 hours escape, or that
following the having such
insurance of a opportunity, they
had the mettle to
proclamation by take advantage of
the chief it or to brave the
executive perils in connection
announcing the with a jailbreak.
passing away And there is no
assurance that had
of such
they successfully
calamity. run away and
regained their
precious liberty,
they would have,
nevertheless,
voluntarily
exchanged it later
with the privations
of prison life,
impelled by that
sense of right and
loyalty to the
Government, which
is sought to be
rewarded with the
special allowance.
RA 6235 ANTI- Acts punishable: 1. An (People vs Ang
HIJACKING LAW 1. It shall be aircraft is in flight Cho Kio, 95 Phil.
from the moment all 475)
unlawful for any
its external doors are The act of the
person to compel closed following accused, who
a change in the embarkation until compelled the pilot
course or any of such doors is to change the
destination of opened for course of the
disembarkation. airplane from laoag
an aircraft of
2. The aircraft must to Amoy instead of
Philippine be of Philippine directing it to Aparri
registry, or to registry and it and, in not
seize or usurp the must be in flight. complying with
control thereof, 3. An aircraft is such illegal
while it is in flight. considered in flight requirement, the
from the moment accused
all exterior doors are discharged various
2. It shall likewise closed following the revolver shots,
be unlawful for embarkation until killing him, could
any person to such time when the have been
compel an aircraft same doors are punished under
again opened for sec. 2 of R.A.
of foreign registry
disembarkation. 6235, had this law
to land in 4. If the aircraft is of been already in
Philippine territory Philippine registry but effect.
it is not in
or to seize or
flight and any of the
usurp the control four circumstances
thereof while it is mentioned
within the said under RA 6235 is
territory. committed.
5. the Anti‐Hijacking
3. It shall be
law will not apply and
unlawful for any the acts
person, natural or will be punished
juridical, to ship, accordingly under the
load or carry in RPC or the
any applicable special
penal laws.
passenger aircraft
operating as a
public utility within
the Philippines,
and explosive,
flammable,
corrosive or
poisonous
substance or
material.