Case Digest (G.R. No. 36275)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 36275)
Facts:
The People of the Philippine Islands v. Crisanto Evangelista, Jacinto G. Manahan and Dominador J. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 36275, October 26, 1932, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ostrand, J., writing for the Court. The defendants-appellants — Crisanto Evangelista, Jacinto G. Manahan, and Dominador J. Ambrosio — were charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with violating Section 8 of Act No. 292, as amended by Act No. 1692, for having founded, organized and led the Partido Komunista sa Pilipinas and for uttering, publishing and circulating seditious words and documents that allegedly incited revolt and obstructed lawful authorities. The information recited that, beginning in November 1930 and continuing thereafter, the accused read and caused to be distributed the party constitution and by‑laws, delivered speeches and disseminated pamphlets urging class struggle, the overthrow of American imperialism and capitalism, and the establishment of a Soviet‑type government by the laboring class.Evidence at trial showed that on November 7, 1930 a large meeting in Manila celebrated the Soviet Union anniversary where Ambrosio read the Communist Party constitution and by‑laws; Evangelista and Manahan also spoke at meetings in November and December 1930, distributed pamphlets (including a manifesto of the Katipunan nang manga Anak Pawis sa Filipinas), and urged unity of laborers, seizure of state power and, by explicit reference to Andres Bonifacio and the Bolsheviks, revolution rather than peaceful reform. The trial court convicted the appellants under the charged statute (the decision below is referred to in the appeal), and the appellants appealed.
On appeal to the Supreme Court the appellants raised factual and legal defenses: that the published extracts were inaccurate; that no public disturbance or breach of the peace occurred; that their speeches amounted to abstract exposition of doctrine (invoking the principle in Gitlow v. People of New York); and that, if any offense existed, they should benefit from the Revised Penal Code provisions enacted since Act No. 292. The Supreme Court entertained these contentions in a Rule on the appealed judgment and rendered judgment affirming the conviction and imposing costs against each appellant.
Issues:
- Did the acts and utterances of the appellants constitute a violation of Section 8 of Act No. 292, as amended by Act No. 1692?
- Is the absence of any resultant disturbance or breach of the peace a defense to the charge under Section 8 (or under the relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code)?
- Were the appellants protected as mere expositors of abstract doctrine under Gitlow v. People of New York, or did their speech amount to punishable incitement?
- If an offense was committed, were the appellants entitled to be sentenced under the Revised Penal Code (Articles 139–142) instead of Section 8 of Act No. 292, and would that afford them a lesser punishment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)