Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-versus- for:
MEMORANDUM
(Accused)
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Memorandum
“Direct Assault”
1|Page
This is a case of direct assault upon an agent of a person in
authority against _____. The charge against him came about when
police officers raided the house of his aunt on the afternoon of
February 6, 2014 at Pamutic, Pidigan, Abra on the basis of search
warrant Number 14-023. ______ allegedly pointed a pistol at the
police officers outside his house thereby warranting his indictment
for the crime of direct assault upon an agent of a person in
authority. The accusatory portion in the information against him
reads as follows:
ARGUMENTS
ACCUSED IS NOT
GUILTY OF DIRECT ASSAULT
“Q – And when you reached the house of accusrd what did you
do Mr. Witness?
Q – Where were you at that time when your team leader told
you that a man peeping in the window?
Q – You were in front of the main door, or the side of the house
or the back door?
Memorandum
“Direct Assault”
3|Page
Q – Did you personally see that he was holding a gun?
A – No sir. “
The Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that for the
validity of a search warrant, the Constitution requires that there be a
particular description of the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized. The rule is that a description of a place to be
searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and
distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or
description known to the locality that leads the officer unerringly to
it satisfies the constitutional requirement. However, what is
controlling is what is stated in the warrant and not what
peace officers have in mind.
The police had no authority to search the two (2) story house
of xxxxxx, which was not the place indicated in the warrant, even if
they really intended it to be the subject of their application. Indeed,
the place to be searched cannot be changed, enlarged or amplified
by the police.
Memorandum
“Direct Assault”
6|Page
Secondly, the elements of direct assault upon an agent of a person
in authority are as follows:
A) That the ofender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c)
makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious
resistance;
B) That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;
C) That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his
agent (a) is engaged in the actual performance of official
duties, or that he is assaulted, (b) by reason of the past
performance of official duties;
D) That the ofender knows that the one he is assaulting is a
person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties;
E) That there is no public uprising.
In the case at bar, the offender did not make an attack, he did not
employ force, he did not seriously resist, neither did he seriously
intimidate an agent of a person in authority as already discussed
above. The police officers who executed the search warrant was
neither engaged in the actual performance of duties nor were they
assaulted by reason of the past performance of official duties. They
were not in the actual performance of duties because as the
Supreme Court held “A person in authority or his agent who exceeds
his power or acts without authority is not in the exercise of the
functions of his office.” (People v. Hernandez, 59 Phil 343; People v.
Garcia, et al., 38 O.G. 94; People v. Tilos, et al.)
RELIEF
COUNSEL
Memorandum
“Direct Assault”
7|Page
Memorandum
“Direct Assault”
8|Page