Article 152.

Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be

deemed as such.

In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person
directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A
barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.

A person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent

authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of
life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and
any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a
person in authority.

In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and
persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges
and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (As amended by PD
No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985).

Article 153. Tumults and other disturbances of public order

The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not exceeding 200,000 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.

The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon persons causing any disturbance
or interruption of a tumultuous character.

The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to be tumultuous if caused by more than

three persons who are armed or provided with means of violence.

The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who in any meeting,
association, or public place, shall make any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition or in
such place shall display placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of the public
order.

The penalty of arresto menor and a fine not to exceed 40,000 pesos shall be imposed upon
these persons who in violation of the provisions contained in the last clause of Article 85,
shall bury with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed.

What are the punishable acts in Article 153?

(1) Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment, if the act is not
included in Articles 131 and 132;
(2) Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if
the act is not included in Articles 131 and 132;

*Note: If the (1) serious disturbance or (2) interruption is tumultuous in character, the penalty
will be next higher in degree.

(3) Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or
public place;

(4) Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order in such
place;

(5) Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed. (Reyes, RPC, p.
162)

➢ When you say legally executed; it means that the said person has committed a
heinous crime. The penalty prescribed by law is death and so he was killed by means
of lethal injection but at present because of Republic Act No. 9346, we have no more
death penalty. Death Penalty is prohibited to be imposed.
➢ But in burying with pomp the body of the person who has been legally executed; the
said person must be legally executed because the said person has committed a
heinous crime yet when he was buried he was buried with such extravagance as if as
he is a hero, as if as the government has committed a crime in legally executing him
therefore it causes sympathy arising on the part of the people hence, it was a
disturbance of public order.

(1) "Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment", if the
act is not included in Arts. 131 and 132-

-The nature of the gathering, activity, or meeting is immaterial because what is punished
here is the disturbance that happens in a public place, office or establishment (whether
public or private).

-The disturbance must be serious, otherwise the crime will only be alarms and scandals
under Art. 155.

To be considered "serious", it must be planned or intended and not just a spur of the
moment. Example: Supporters of candidate X happened to pass by the house where the
supporters of candidate Y were having a meeting. As emotions were running high, some of
the supporters of candidate X shouted political insults at the supporters of candidate Y,
disturbing the attention of the latter in the process. Here, there is only a slight disturbance
and that the same was not planned or intended. Hence, the crime is only alarms and
scandals under Art. 155.

-The act causing the serious disturbance must not come under either Arts. 131 (prohibition,
interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings) or 132 (interruption of religious worship),
otherwise Arts. 131 or 132, as the case may be, is applicable.
-The crime is Art. 131 or 132 if the offender is a public officer or employee AND he is not a
participant in the meeting or religious worship. *If the public officer or employee is a
participant in the meeting or religious worship and he disturbs or interrupts the same, the
crime is disturbance of public order under Art. 153.

-Also, a private individual whether a participant or not in the meeting or religious worship
who prohibits, interrupts and dissolves peaceful meetings or who prevents or disturbs the
ceremonies or manifestations of any religion, is liable under Art. 153, not under Art. 131 or
132. Reason: Only a public officer or employee can be held liable in Arts. 131 and 132.

(2) "Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful

meetings", if the act is not included in Articles 131 and 132-

-The offenders can be: (a) private individual (whether an attendee/participant in the
gathering or not) or (b) public officer/employee who is an attendee or participant in the
meeting. If the public officer/employee is not a participant in the gathering and he disturbs
the same, the crime committed is either Art. 131 or 132.

-A private individual who prohibits, interrupts and dissolves peaceful meetings or who
prevents or disturbs the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion is liable under Art. 153,
not under Art. 131 or 132. Reason: Only a public officer or employee can be held liable in
Arts. 131 and 132.

When is the disturbance or interruption considered tumultuous?

The (1) disturbance or (2) interruption is considered tumultuous if caused by more than three
persons who are armed or provided with means of violence. The effect when the disturbance
or interruption is considered tumultuous is it increases the imposable penalty by 1 degree.

(3) "Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting,
association or public place"

(4) "Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order in

such place"-

-An "outcry" means to shout subversive or provocative words tending to stir up the people to
obtain by means of force or violence any of the objects of rebellion or sedition. (Reyes, RPC,
p. 163)

When does an "outcry" or displaying of emblems or placards become inciting to sedition or

rebellion?

-The offender must have done the act with the thought of inducing his hearers or readers to
commit the crime of rebellion or sedition. (Reyes, RPC, р. 163)

*Here, Criminal intent can only be shown through the overt act of the offender, If the offender
has shown no overt act then we cannot validly say that the offender had the intent of
inducing his hearers or readers to commit the crime of rebellion or sedition; However, if the
offender is clearly displaying emblems or placards with writings that incites the hearers or
readers to sedition or rebellion then it is established that the overt act is present. In such a
case, the crime is no longer punishable under the 3rd punishable act, but rather in the 4th
punishable act.

OVERT ACT - some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination
following its natural cause, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.

● Drawing or trying to draw a pistol or raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party
with it is not an overt act of homicide.

When does an "outcry" constitute only disturbance of public order?

-If the outcry is only an unconscious outburst which, although rebellious or seditious in
nature, is not intentionally calculated to induce others to commit rebellion or sedition, the
crime is only disturbance of public order under Art. 153.

(5) "Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed-

Related article: Art. 85, RPC: Article 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person
executed and its burial. - Unless claimed by his family, the corpse of the culprit shall, upon
the completion of the legal proceedings subsequent to the execution, be turned over to the
institute of learning or scientific research first applying for it, for the purpose of study and
investigation, provided that such institute shall take charge of the decent burial of the
remains. Otherwise, the Director of Prisons shall order the burial of the body of the culprit at
government expense, granting permission to be present thereat to the members of the family
of the culprit and the friends of the latter. In no case shall the burial of the body of a person
sentenced to death be held with pomp.

"burying with pomp" - means an ostentatious and splendid kind of burying the dead; it is not
allowed with respect to death convicts because it not only shows the defiant attitude of the
convict's family members but also gives the wrong impression to the public that a death
convict's life should be celebrated.

This part of the article, however, is legally inoperative because RA 9346 had already
abolished the death penalty, hence, the crime can no longer be committed.