Anda di halaman 1dari 3

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-1451 March 6, 1906


THE UNITED STATES,Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AURELIO TOLENTINO,DefendantAppellant.
Rafael Palma and Gibbs and Kincaid for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee.
CARSON, J.:
Aurelio Tolentino, the appellant in this case, was convicted upon an information charging
him with the crime of "uttering seditious words and writings, publishing and circulating
scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States and the Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands, committed as follows: That said Aurelio Tolentino,
on or about the 14th day of May, 1903, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, did
unlawfully utter seditious words and speeches and did write, publish, and circulate
scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States and the Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands, which tend to obstruct the lawful officers of the
United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands in the execution of
their offices, and which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful
purposes, and which suggest and incite rebellious conspiracies and riots, and which tend
to stir up the people against the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of the
community and the safety and order of the Government of the United States and the
Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, which said seditious words and speeches
are false and inflammatory, and tend to incite and move the people to hatred and dislike
of the government established by law within the Philippine Islands, and tend to incite,
move, and persuade great numbers of the people of said Philippine Islands to
insurrection, riots, tumults, and breaches of the public peace; which said false,
seditious, and inflammatory words and scurrilous libels are in Tagalog language in a
theatrical work written by said Aurelio Tolentino, and which was presented by him and
others on the said 14th day of May, 1903, at the "Teatro Libertad," in the city of Manila,
Philippine Islands, entitled 'Kahapon gayon at Bukas' (Yesterday, To-day, and Tomorrow). An exact translation of the said drama is included in the information, and
various parts thereof are specially assigned, which, in the opinion of the prosecution,
were more especially in violation of the statute in such cases made and provided.
c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw

l i br ar y

c hanr obl e s

v i r t ual

l aw

l i br ar y

It was proven at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact write
the drama and the announcement thereof, substantially as set out in the information,
and did, with other members of a theatrical company, of which he was director, utter and
publish the same substantially in manner and form as charged, and as we understand it,
the only question for decision is whether, in writing, publishing, and uttering the drama,
the accused was in fact guilty of a violation of section 8 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine
Commission, upon which the information was based.
c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw

l i br ar y

c hanr obl e s

v i r t ual

l aw

l i br ar y

This section is as follows:


Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or
circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the
Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or which tend to disturb or
obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office, or which tend to instigate
others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or
incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which tend to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the
safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil
practices, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by
imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.
Counsel discussed at some length the question whether the drama or any part of it was
of a "scurrilous" nature in the legal acceptation of the word, but for the purposes of this
decision we do not deem it necessary to make a finding on this point. In the case of the
United States vs. Fred L. Dorr and Edward F. O'Brien, 1 decided May 19, 1903, this court
said:
The complaint appears to be framed upon the theory that a writing, in order to

be punishable as a libel under this section, must be of a scurrilous nature and


directed against the Government of the United States or the Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands, and must, in addition, tend to some one
of the results enumerated in the section, the article in question being
described in the complaint as "a scurrilous libel against the Government of the
United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, which
tends to obstruct the lawful officers of the United States and the Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands in the execution of their offices, and
which tends to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful
purposes, and which suggests and incites rebellious conspiracies, and which
tends to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, and which disturbs
the safety and order of the Government of the United States and the Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands." But it is a "a well-settled rule in
considering indictments that where an offense may be committed in any of
several different modes, and the offense, in any particular instance, is alleged
to have been committed in two or more modes specified, it is sufficient to
prove the offense committed in any one of them, provide that it be such as to
constitute the substantive offense." (Com. vs. Kneeland, 20 Pick. Mass. 206,
215), and the defendants may, therefore, be convicted if any one of the
substantive charges into which the complaint may be separated has been
made out.
c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw

l i br ar y

c hanr obl e s

v i r t ual

l aw

l i br ar y

Several allied offenses or modes of committing the same offense are define in
that section, viz: (1) The uttering of seditious words or speeches; (2) the
writing, publishing, or circulating of scurrilous libels against the Government of
the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands; (3) the
writing, publishing, or circulating of libels which tend to disturb or obstruct any
lawful officer in executing his office; (4) or which tend to instigate others to
cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes; (5) or which suggest or incite
rebellious conspiracies or riots; (6) or which tend to stir up the people against
the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and
order of the Government; (7) knowingly concealing such evil practices.
In accordance with the principles laid down in the preceding paragraph the judgment of
conviction in this case must be sustained, if it appears from the evidence in the record
that the accused was guilty as charged of any one of those offenses. We are all agreed
that the publication and presentation of the drama directly and necessarily tend to
instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, and to suggest and
incite rebellious conspiracies and riots and to stir up the people against the lawful
authorities and to disturb the peace of the community and the safety and order of the
Government.
c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw

l i br ar y

c hanr obl e s

v i r t ual

l aw

l i br ar y

The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play, in view of the time, place, and manner
of its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of hatred and enmity against the American
people and the Government of the United States in the Philippines, and we are satisfied
that the principal object and intent of its author was to incite the people of the
Philippine Islands to open and armed resistance to the constituted authorities, and to
induce them to conspire together for the secret organization of armed forces, to be used
when the opportunity presented itself, for the purpose of overthrowing the present
Government and setting up another in its stead.
c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw

l i br ar y

c hanr obl e s

v i r t ual

l aw

l i br ar y

Counsel for the appellant insists that the intent of the accused to commit the crime with
which he is charged does not appear from the evidence of record, and that the drama is,
in itself, a purely literary and artistic production wherein the legendary history of these
Islands and their future, as imagined by the author, are presented merely for the
instruction and entertainment of the public.
c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw

l i br ar y

c hanr obl e s

v i r t ual

l aw

l i br ar y

This contention can not be maintained. The public presentation of the drama took place
in the month of May, 1903, less than two years after the establishment of the Civil
Government. The smouldering embers of a wide-spread and dangerous insurrection were
not yet entirely extinguished, and here and there throughout the Islands occasional
outbreaks still required the use of the armed forces of the Government for their
suppression. A junta in the city of Hongkong, composed of persons whose announced
purpose and object in organizing was the overthrow of the present Government, was
actively engaged in the endeavor to keep the people of these Islands from peaceably
accepting the authority of that Government, and this junta, acting with confederates in

the Philippines, was still able to keep alive a certain spirit of unrest and uncertainty
which it hoped to fan into open revolt and rebellion at the first favorable opportunity.
c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw

c hanr obl e s

v i r t ual

l aw

l i br ar y

l i br ar y

The manner and form in which the drama was presented at such a time and under such
conditions, renders absurd the pretense that it was merely or even principally a literary
or artistic production, and the clumsy devices, the allegorical figures, the apparent
remoteness, past and future, of the events portrayed, could not and in fact were not
intended to leave the audience in doubt as to its present and immediate application, nor
should they blind this court to the true purpose and intent of the author and director of
the play.
c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw

l i br ar y

c hanr obl e s

v i r t ual

l aw

l i br ar y

It is further contended that even though the accused were in fact guilty as charged, the
court erred in imposing an excessive and unjust penalty, and in fixing the amount of the
fine in dollars instead of Philippine currency. As to the latter objection it is sufficient to
say that the use of the word "dollars" was in strict conformance with the words of the
statute, and that the equivalent of that word in Philippine currency is fixed by law. The
penalty was within the limits prescribed by law, and we are not prepared to hold that
the trial court erred in the exercise of its discretion in imposing it.
c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw

l i br ar y

c hanr obl e s

v i r t ual

l aw

l i br ar y

The judgment and sentence appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the
appellant. So ordered.
c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw

l i br ar y

c hanr obl e s

v i r t ual

l aw

l i br ar y

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Willard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:
1

2 Phil. Rep., 332.

AG ODA'S

BEST HOTEL OFFER S

Save up to 75% Instant confirmation Use your reward points and save!

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE


1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

F EA T URED DEC ISIONScralaw

Main Indices of the Library --->

Go!

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Search

Anda mungkin juga menyukai