But sir, the first phrase of Art. 152 states that "In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code" which remained even in the amendment adding the phrase "any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority". I think the intention of the lawmakers was to change Art. 149 as well although impliedly. Furthermore, I remember that in case of doubt in the interpretation of penal laws, a doubt should be interpreted liberally in favor of the accused. Certainly, a charge for indirect assault is more favorable to the accused than direct assault.
Thank you for this, sir. Q: What if the case didn't say that the accused knew that the person he assaulted is a PIA or APIA? Will this now be considered as indirect assault?
I consummately understood, thank you Fiscal sir
But sir, the first phrase of Art. 152 states that "In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code" which remained even in the amendment adding the phrase "any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority". I think the intention of the lawmakers was to change Art. 149 as well although impliedly. Furthermore, I remember that in case of doubt in the interpretation of penal laws, a doubt should be interpreted liberally in favor of the accused. Certainly, a charge for indirect assault is more favorable to the accused than direct assault.
Can you clarify what is your point? Are u referring to the apparent conflict between 149 and 152?
Thank you for this, sir. Q: What if the case didn't say that the accused knew that the person he assaulted is a PIA or APIA? Will this now be considered as indirect assault?
Yes, I believe so by virtue of the express provision of Article 149.