G.R. No. L-17748 - People vs. Cabrera

On December 13, 1920, Manila police arrested a woman from the household of a Philippine Constabulary soldier stationed at Santa Lucia Barracks, Intramuros. Constabulary soldiers perceived the arrest as an outrage, heightening friction between the Manila Police Department and the Constabulary.
On December 14, at about sunset, policeman Artemio Mojica, posted on Calle Real, Intramuros, had an altercation with Constabulary soldiers, resulting in the shooting of Private Crispin Macasinag of the Constabulary. Macasinag was mortally wounded. The shooting intensified resentment at Santa Lucia Barracks.
The Constabulary command, aware of tension, increased guards and confined soldiers within the barracks (Captain Page). On December 15, a rumor spread among Constabulary soldiers that Mojica was still on duty and that Macasinag had died, precipitating a revenge movement.

At about 7:00 p.m. on December 15, Corporal Francisco Ingles (Fourth Company) asked Private Nicolas Torio (in charge of quarters) to allow soldiers to leave through a window. Private Francisco Garcia (Second Company) sawed the window bars. Soldiers escaped with rifles and ammunition under noncommissioned officers.
Once outside, the soldiers divided into armed groups to attack the Manila police.

Calle Real/Calle Cabildo: A Constabulary squad (about 10–12 men) fired toward the corner where American policeman Driskill spoke with US Army field clerk Jacumin. Both were fatally shot. Driskill returned fire despite mortal injury. Jacumin was killed even after raising his hands. The squad fired into a streetcar, killing passenger Victor de Torres and seriously wounding civilians Gregorio Cailles, Vicente Antonio, and Mariano Cortes. Father Jose Tahon intervened to stop the firing and to minister to the wounded.
Real/Magallanes: Assistant Manila Police Chief Captain William E. Wichman arrived by motorcycle driven by policeman Saplala; a volley killed Wichman instantly and Saplala shortly thereafter. A police patrol from Meisic station coming along Calle Real near Cabildo was fired upon by Constabulary soldiers from the San Agustin Church courtyard, killing patrolmen Trogue and Sison.
Sunken Gardens/Luneta front: Another platoon (30–40 men) formed a firing line on the Sunken Gardens east of Calle General Luna, opposite the Aquarium, and fired on a motorcycle with Sergeant Armada and policeman Policarpio; Policarpio was mortally wounded. The platoon also fired volleys into the Luneta police station and the secret service office across General Luna/Padre Burgos; no one was injured.
General Rafael Crame (Constabulary Chief) and Captain Page rounded up soldiers on the streets; others returned and were disarmed. No contemporaneous list of returning soldiers was made.

On the morning of December 16, 1920, Colonel Lucien R. Sweet assembled about 180 soldiers on the parade grounds, separated by companies, and with Captain Silvino Gallardo interpreting into Tagalog, asked those who went out the previous night to step forward after a five-minute reflection; those who went out then were asked, for justice to themselves and others, to step forward if they participated in the shooting. Seventy-three present stepped forward and named four more absent, totaling seventy-seven.
Written statements of the seventy-seven soldiers were taken that afternoon by the Manila fiscals using a uniform questionnaire (English/Spanish; translated to dialects as needed), each signed before two or three witnesses. Statements indicated knowledge of the incidents, motives of revenge, and admissions of leaving the barracks and firing shots. Sergeant Graciano L. Cabrera’s Spanish/Tagalog statement exemplified content: motive was long-standing grudge and vengeance for perceived abuses and the Macasinag shooting; he left through the sawed window, armed with a carbine, fired multiple shots, and swore voluntariness without promise of immunity.

Two informations were filed in the CFI Manila: (a) sedition under Act No. 292; (b) murder and serious physical injuries. The cases were tried separately before Judges George R. Harvey (sedition) and Carlos Imperial (murder). Proof was substantially the same by stipulation.
All accused except eight initially pleaded guilty to sedition but, after the first prosecution witness testified, were allowed to withdraw and plead not guilty. The prosecution offered the seventy-seven confessions (Exhibits C to C-76), identified by officers/interpreters/typists (all but three), plus eyewitness testimony.
Defense theories: (a) Confessions were not voluntary (Mindanao transfer rumor; “good of the service” appeals; language barriers); (b) a group of named accused did not leave the barracks and did not participate.
The trial court rejected the defenses, found guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and imposed the maximum imprisonment of ten years under section 6 of Act No. 292 on all defendants; differentiated fines: no fines for sixty-five privates; P5,000 fine each for Private Francisco Garcia (who sawed the bars) and eight corporals (E. E. Agbulos, Francisco Ingles, Clemente Manigdeg, Juan Abarquez, Pedro V. Mateo, Juan Regalado, Hilario Hibalar, Genaro Elayda); P10,000 fine each for Sergeants Graciano L. Cabrera, Pascual Magno, and Bonifacio Eugenio; costs divided pro rata.

Defendants appealed, assigning five errors. The Supreme Court reiterated deference to trial court credibility findings absent overlooked facts or misinterpretation (U.S. v. Ambrosio and Falsario; U.S. v. Remigio) and found no such circumstance.

Whether the seventy-seven written confessions (Exhibits C to C-76) were admissible as voluntary, free from violence, intimidation, threats, or promises of reward/leniency.

Considerations included alleged deception (Mindanao transfer rumor), appeals to step forward for the good of the service, and language/translation concerns; and whether objections were timely interposed.

Whether a conspiracy or concert of action among the accused existed, rendering each liable for acts of others in furtherance of a common design.

Considerations included “nobody asked me” answers, the “psychology of crowds” theory, and whether sedition requires proof of conspiracy.

Whether the acts constituted sedition under Section 5(3), Act No. 292—public and tumultuous rising to inflict acts of hate or revenge upon officials/agents of the government—and whether the offenders must be private citizens and the victims public officers.

Consideration of defense contention that this was merely a fight between two government armed bodies (Constabulary vs. Manila police) and whether policemen’s awareness affected liability.

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the special defense that certain named accused did not leave the barracks and did not participate.

Whether the penalties—maximum imprisonment and differentiated fines—were proper exercises of judicial discretion under Section 6, Act No. 292.