FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246253. July 30, 2019.]
MA. THERESA GONZALES, CARLITO MILLAN, MARCIAL ARABA, VIRGILIO GUNDRAN, BENNY ANGELES, MELITA MACAS, EDWINA CALENDAS, MARJULIE GALLARDO AND ESTRELLITA FRIAL, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 30, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246253 (Ma. Theresa Gonzales, Carlito Millan, Marcial Araba, Virgilio Gundran, Benny Angeles, Melita Macas, Edwina Calendas, Marjulie Gallardo and Estrellita Frial vs. People of the Philippines) — The petitioners' motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 of the Decision 2 dated November 21, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated March 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 39759.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to deny the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA.
We find no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the CA. As correctly ruled by the CA, serious disturbance resulted from the rally held on July 4, 2012 and December 3, 2012 because, although these assemblies began and were intended to be held only during the employees' lunch break, it was extended beyond said period. Participants even occupied a portion of EDSA northbound where there were many passing motorists, causing heavy traffic. They even used a passenger jeepney, loaded with speakers, as a makeshift stage. 4 Delivery of the Metro Manila Development Authority's (MMDA) services to the public was hampered when the rally extended beyond lunch break. 5
Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 880 6 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place, and manner of the assemblies. 7 Petitioners cannot invoke good faith in failing to secure permits for their assemblies, in violation of B.P. 880. It is only in "strike areas" such as freedom parks duly established by law or ordinance, or in private property but subject to the consent of the owner, or in the campus of a government-owned and operated educational institution where permit is not necessary. 8
Petitioner maintains that only the leaders and organizers of the subject assemblies should be held liable for violation of B.P. 880. Section 13 (a) of B.P. 880 states:
Sec. 13. Prohibited acts. — The following shall constitute violations of this Act:
(a) The holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any leader or organizer without having first secured that written permit where a permit is required from the office concerned, or the use of such permit for such purposes in any place other than those set out in said permit: Provided, however, That no person can be punished or held criminally liable for participating in or attending an otherwise peaceful assembly;
xxx xxx xxx. (Emphasis ours) 9
A perusal of the records reveals that petitioners are all officers of the union: Ma. Theresa B. Gonzales is the Secretary General; Carlito H. Millan is the Sergeant-at-Arms; Marcial Araba is the Vice President; Virgilio Gundran is the Auditor; Benny Angeles is the Public Relations Officer; Melita V. Macas is the Assistant Treasurer; Edwina Calendas is the Assistant Secretary; Marjulie Gallardo is the Treasurer; and Estrelita Frial is the Assistant Auditor. 10 Thus, following the argument of petitioners, they can all be held liable for violation of Section 13 (a) of B.P. 880.
However, there is a need to modify the imposable penalty for the two counts of tumults and other disturbances of public order punishable under Article 153 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, equivalent to two (2) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months, and a fine not exceeding P1,000.00 shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause any serious disturbance in a public place, such as the frontage of the MMDA building and the northbound lane of EDSA that were occupied by petitioners. 11 The penalty of one (1) month of imprisonment imposed by the lower courts is not within the range provided for by the Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 21, 2018 and the Resolution dated March 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 39759 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 373012 and Criminal Case No. 373267 are both increased to two (2) months and one (1) day. Furthermore, each petitioner is ORDERED to pay a fine of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) for every charge of tumults and other disturbances of public order.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-33.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Maria Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, concurring; id. at 38-56.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Maria Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, concurring; id. at 58-59.
4.Id. at 52.
5.Id. at 49.
6. An Act Ensuring the Free Exercise by the People of their Right Peaceably to Assemble and Petition the Government for Other Purposes.
7.Bayan v. Ermita, 522 Phil. 201, 231 (2006).
8. Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, Sec. 4.
9. Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, Sec. 13 (a).
10.Rollo, p. 93.
11. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 153.