Case Digest (G.R. No. 36278)
Facts:
In the case of THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CRISANTO EVANGELISTA et al., twenty-seven persons were charged in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila on or about May 30, 1931, with membership in the so-called Communist Party of the Philippines, alleged to be an illegal association whose objects included overthrowing the government by force and inciting class revolt. After trial the court convicted twenty defendants and acquitted seven; the convicted appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Several appellants admitted membership or activities: Crisanto Evangelista acknowledged affiliation and that the party's constitution advocated overthrow by armed revolution; others campaigned as party candidates, delivered speeches, edited the party organ, or traveled as delegates to Soviet-linked congresses. The trial court imposed confinamiento of eight years and one day under paragraph 5, Article 190 of the old Penal Code as substituted by the Royal Decree of September 12, 1897.
Issues:
- Was the Communist Party of the Philippines an illegal association under Article 188 of the Penal Code?
- Was the penalty of confinamiento under paragraph 5, Article 190 of the old Penal Code properly imposed despite the existence of the Revised Penal Code?
Ruling:
The Court affirmed the convictions of the twenty appellants and the judgment of the court below, with costs against the twenty defendants. The acquittals of the seven other defendants below were left undisturbed.
The Court also affirmed the imposition of confinamiento as the applicable penalty, holding that the offense occurred under the old Penal Code and that the penalty imposed was lawful and lighter than the sanction under the Revised Penal Code.
Ratio:
The Court relied on admissions, the party constitution and by-laws, and evidence of public acts (candidacies, speeches, editorship, foreign delegation) to conclude that the party's objects were to alter the social order and to commit crimes such as rebellion and sedition, thereby fitting the statutory definition of an illegal association in Article 188. The Court referenced contemporaneous investigations and judicial precedent to support the view that force is inseparable from the communist program described.
As to penalty, the Court applied the penal law in force at the time of the offense, holding that the old Penal Code governed and that confinamiento under paragraph 5, Article 190 was properly imposed and was a lighter penalty than the alternatives in Article 147 of the Revised Penal Code.
Doctrine:
- An association whose declared objects are to attack the fundamental basis of the social order or to alter the regularity of its functions is an illegal association under Article 188 of the Penal Code.
- (Get Pro to unlock 2 more doctrines)