Scribd
Upload
682 views1 page

US vs. Ravidas (Art 137)

Ravidas was charged with insurrection for failing to report insurgents in his municipality as the municipal president. While his silence was reproachable, it did not constitute the crime of insurrection as defined by law, which requires overt acts rather than omissions. Additionally, Ravidas could not be found guilty of disloyalty, as that crime requires an actual rebellion occurring, and there was no proven rebellion in his municipality over which insurgents had control. The court found Ravidas not guilty as his failure to report did not meet the legal standards for insurrection or disloyalty.

Uploaded by

tink echivere
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
682 views1 page

US vs. Ravidas (Art 137)

Ravidas was charged with insurrection for failing to report insurgents in his municipality as the municipal president. While his silence was reproachable, it did not constitute the crime of insurrection as defined by law, which requires overt acts rather than omissions. Additionally, Ravidas could not be found guilty of disloyalty, as that crime requires an actual rebellion occurring, and there was no proven rebellion in his municipality over which insurgents had control. The court found Ravidas not guilty as his failure to report did not meet the legal standards for insurrection or disloyalty.

Uploaded by

tink echivere
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

United States vs.

Ravidas March 14, 1905


G.R. No. 1503 (Art. 137 – Disloyalty of Public Officers or Employees)

Facts: Alejo Ravidas et al. were charged


with the crime of insurrection. Ravidas
prayed for his acquittal alleging that “it is
not proven that he permitted or
encouraged insurrection or engaged in
the same by abetting them directly or
indirectly.” since the only fact disclosed
by the evidence adduced in the case is
that Ravidas knew that there were
insurgents in a place and his duty as
municipal president required him to
report this fact to the senior officer of the
province but he did not do so nor did he
take any steps toward pursuing or
denouncing the insurgents or to protect
the people from their probable
depredations.

Issue: Whether Ravidas is guilty of


disloyalty?

Held: No. However reproachful the


silence of Ravidas may be, it does not in
itself constitute the crime of insurrection.
Act No. 292 defines and specified the
acts which shall be punished as
insurrection, but among those acts the
silence of the defendant is not
enumerated. This silence is not an act; it
is rather, an omission.

The crime of disloyalty of public officers


presupposes the existence of rebellion
by other persons. In the case at bar, the
accused could not be held liable even for
disloyalty because there was no actual
rebellion going on in the municipality.
There must be rebellion to be resisted or,
at least, the place is under the control of
rebels.

Digested by: Julio Marco Serrano

You might also like