Scribd
Upload
53 views1 page

Gigantoni VS People

Melencio Gigantoni falsely represented himself as an agent of the Philippine Constabulary-Criminal Investigation Service (PC-CIS) to obtain travel records from Philippine Air Lines. However, Gigantoni had been dismissed from the PC-CIS over a year earlier. When confronted, Gigantoni admitted he was no longer an agent. The court ruled that Gigantoni was not guilty of usurpation of authority because there was no evidence that he knowingly and falsely represented himself as a government agent. Article 177 requires that the representation be made knowingly and falsely, and there was reasonable doubt that Gigantoni had the intent to deceive.

Uploaded by

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

Gigantoni VS People

Melencio Gigantoni falsely represented himself as an agent of the Philippine Constabulary-Criminal Investigation Service (PC-CIS) to obtain travel records from Philippine Air Lines. However, Gigantoni had been dismissed from the PC-CIS over a year earlier. When confronted, Gigantoni admitted he was no longer an agent. The court ruled that Gigantoni was not guilty of usurpation of authority because there was no evidence that he knowingly and falsely represented himself as a government agent. Article 177 requires that the representation be made knowingly and falsely, and there was reasonable doubt that Gigantoni had the intent to deceive.

Uploaded by

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

1.

Gigantoni vs People

FACTS

In 1981, accused Melencio Gigantoni was an employee of Black Mountain Mining Inc. and Tetra
Management Corporation, which are both private companies doing business in the Philippines. On May
14, 1981, Gigantoni went to the office of the Philippine Air Lines (PAL) allegedly to conduct verification
of some travels made by Black Mountain's officials. Upon reaching the said PAL office, he falsely
represented himself to the PAL legal officer as a PC-CIS agent. To further convince the PAL officials of his
supposed mission, Gigantoni exhibited his I.D. purporting to show that he was a PC-CIS agent.
Thereupon, his aforesaid request was granted, and PAL legal officer Atty. Conrado A. Boro showed to
him the requested PAL records. Gigantoni then secured xerox copies of the requested manifest.

When Gigantoni was no longer around, PAL general counsel Ricardo Puno, Jr., inquired from Atty. Boro
about Gigantoni's purpose in securing copies of PAL records. They then became suspicious of the
accused’s real identity prompting them to conduct verification from the PC-CIS office. They subsequently
learned from General Uy of PC-CIS that Gigantoni was no longer a CIS agent since June 30, 1980 as he
had been dismissed from the service. On May 15, 1981, in the presence of Atty. Boro and a PAL security,
Gigantoni was confronted by Atty. Puno as to his real Identity. He later admitted that he was no longer
with the CIS.

Issue:

Whether or not Gigantoni knowingly and falsely represent himself as an agent of the CIS, Philippine
Constabulary

Ruling:

NO.

The information charges the accused with the crime of usurpation of authority for "knowingly and
falsely representing himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the
Philippine Government." Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code on usurpation of authority or official
functions, under which the petitioner was charged, punishes any person: (a) who knowingly and falsely
represents himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the
Philippine Government or of any foreign government; or (b) who, under pretense of official position,
performs any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or
any foreign government or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so. The former
constitutes the crime of usurpation of authority under which the petitioner stands charged, while the
latter act constitutes the crime of usurpation of official functions.

You might also like