SANTOS, SALYMAR V.

Legal Technique and Logic

March 22, 2015

BONUS: Can you think of any other offense with which

Bartholomew Kuma could be charged? Explain briefly with
reasons.
BARTHOLOMEW KUMA can be charged of the following
crimes:
I.
Bartholomew Kuma can be charged of Article 153 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Article 153 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Tumults and other disturbance of public orders;
Tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to
cause disturbance. The penalty of arresto mayor
in its medium period to prision correccional in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall
cause any serious disturbance in a public place,
office, or establishment, or shall interrupt or
disturb public performances, functions or
gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is
not included in the provisions of Articles 131
and 132. (Emphasis Supplied)
There are several tumults and other disturbances
enumerated under Article 153 of RPC1 and the specific
offense that can be charged against Bartholomew Kuma is
Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions or
gatherings, or peaceful meetings.
1 Article 153 of the Revised Penal Code
1

As explained by retired associate Justice Luis B. Reyes:

Article 153 has reference to Arts. 131 and 132,
which punish the same if committed by public
officers who are not participants in the meeting or
religious worship. Hence, if the act of disturbing
or interrupting a meeting or religious worship is
committed by a private individual, or even by a
public officer, but he is a participant in the meeting
or religious worship which he disturbs or interrupts,
Article 153, not Art. 131 or Art. 132, is
applicable.2 (Emphasis Supplied).
Hence the elements of Interrupting or disturbing
performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings
contemplated under Article 153 as it is in connection with
Article 132 of the Revised Penal Code and applying by analogy,
can be enumerated in the following:
(1) That the offender is NOT a public officer or
employee;
(2) That religious ceremonies or manifestations of
any religion are about to take place or are going on;
(3) That the offender prevents or disturbs the same. 3

Article 153 can be charged against Bartholomew Kuma

for the following reasons: (1) he is a private individual,
(2) there is a religious ceremony or manifestation of any
religion (In God We Trust) that is about to take place as shown
2 Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law Book II,(17h Ed.), 2008,
p 164
3 Reyes, Supra at 80
2

in the facts of the case paragraph two(2) page one(1) which

reads:
Minister Zoro went to their local congregation in
UP Campus to officiate a worship service. As he
arrived at the place with almost no time to spare
before the start of the gathering, he hurriedly parked
his 2005 Toyota Corolla Altis on the road almost in front
of the chapel and very near the driveway of Bartholomew
Kuma, an adjoining lot owner. (Emphasis Supplied)
(3) He disturbs the same by charging angrily in the chapel of
the In God We Trust, shouting, Ministro Zoro! Akin na ang susi
ng sasakyan mo! Napakalaki mong istorbo! Walang respeto!
Walang modo! Akin na ang susi! therefore disturbing and
interrupting the religious ceremony taking place in the said
chapel.
II. Bartholomew Kuma can be charged of GRAVE
COERCION under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who, without authority of law, shall, by
means of violence, prevent another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or compel him
to do something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the
purpose of compelling another to perform any
religious act or to prevent him from so doing, the
penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.
(Emphasis Supplied)

The elements for the crime of grave coercion are the following:
(1) That a person prevented another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or that he
compelled him to do something against his will, be it
right or wrong;
(2) That the prevention or compulsion be effected by
violence, threats or intimidation; and
(3) That the person that restrained the will and liberty
of another had no authority of law or right to do so,
or, in other words, that the restraint shall not be
made under the authority of law or in the exercise of
any lawful right.4 (Emphasis Supplied)
In applying the abovementioned elements, Bartholomew Kuma
can be charged of GRAVE COERCION under Article 286 of
the RPC since:
(1) Bartholomew Kuma prevented Minister Zoro from
doing something not prohibited by law- which is
administering religious ceremony or religious gathering
and he also compelled the minister to give him his car
keys; (2) the prevention or compulsion of Bartholomew
Kuma was effected by an imminent, immediate and
actual violence, threats and intimidation as shown by his
way of entering the chapel and uproar against the
minister; (3) that Batholomew Kuma is just a private
citizen and he does not have the authority of law to do
the prevention and compulsion.

4 Reyes, Supra at 628

4

In addition, assuming that the defense will assail the lack of

actually laying hands by the accused on the person coerced, in
the case of US vs Tupular, the court ruled:
In order to constitute the crime punished under
article 498 of the Penal Code (which is not Article
286 of RPC), it is first absolutely essential that
there should have interposed some act of
violence either of material force or capable of
producing intimidation, controlling the will of
the offended person and causing him to do or
not to do some act contrary thereto. and, in the
second place, that the party compelling acted
illegally or, what is the same thing, not in the use of
any lawful right as a private person, or in the
exercise of his authority as a public functionary.5
Hence, even without the actual laying of hands by the accused
on the person coerced, intimidation is sufficient to constitute
grave coercion. As shown by the acts of Bartholomew Kuma
where he entered the chapel forcibly or angrily accompanied
by shouting is enough to validly produce intimidation.

And lastly, assuming that the defense raise the fact that
Minister Zoro has parked his 2005 Toyota Corolla Altis on the
road almost in front of the chapel and very near the driveway
of Bartolomer Kuma, still, the accused does not have the right
and authority of law to compel the minister to give him his car
keys since the purpose of penalizing coercion is to enforce the

5 United States vs. Tupular, 7 Phil., 8 (1906)

5

principle that no person may take the law lightly into his
hands.6
III.Bartholomew Kuma can be charged of OTHER LIGHT
THREATS under Article 285 Paragraph 3 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Article 285 Pragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Other light threats
3.
Any person who shall orally threaten to
do another any harm not constituting a
felony. (Emphasis Supplied)
The act of Bartholomew Kuma in forcibly or angrily
charging inside the chapel of In God We Trust accompanied by
his shouting presumably made him a threat not just in the
eyes of the one actually threatened but those who have
witnessed the same. The threat he imposed is his means to
effectively compel the minister to give him the car keys.

6 Reyes, Supra at 635

6