Case Digest (G.R. No. 36277)
Facts:
In The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Crisanto Evangelista and Abelardo Ramos, G.R. No. 36277, decided October 26, 1932, the respondents Crisanto Evangelista and Abelardo Ramos were charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with violating Section 8 of Act No. 292, as amended (sedition). On May 1, 1931, in Caloocan, within two and a half miles of Manila, the Communist Party organized a parade whose permit had been revoked by the municipal president. A Constabulary officer and his men arrived to enforce the revocation. Evangelista, as the putative leader, conversed with the officer about the revoked permit and was then permitted to address the crowd to inform them of the situation and order their dispersal. Instead, he raised his fist, eliciting shouts of “mabuhay,” and declared that the higher authorities were “persecuting and oppressing” the workers. From the audience arose cries of “Let us fight them,” echoed by Ramos’s own words, “Let us fight them until death.” ACase Digest (G.R. No. 36277)
Facts:
- Nature and Procedural History
- The People of the Philippine Islands charged Crisanto Evangelista and Abelardo Ramos with violating Section 8 of Act No. 292, as amended (sedition).
- The Court of First Instance of Manila found both defendants guilty, sentencing each to six months’ imprisonment, a fine of ₱400 (with subsidiary imprisonment upon insolvency), and payment of one-half the costs. The defendants appealed.
- Occurrence on May 1, 1931
- A communist parade was planned in Caloocan (within 2½ miles of Manila). A municipal permit was issued by President Aquino but later revoked.
- A Constabulary officer and soldiers arrived to enforce the revocation. Evangelista, acting as leader, discussed the permit with the officer and was allowed to address the crowd.
- Instead of ordering dispersal, Evangelista denounced the revocation as persecution of the “small,” raised his fist, and incited opposition to authorities. Ramos shouted “Let us fight them until death.”
- The crowd attempted to seize Evangelista from the Constabulary and continue the parade; soldiers used a water pump to disperse them.
- On Evangelista’s person were found the original permit and its revocation.
- Defendants’ Denials and Trial Court Findings
- Both appellants denied making the incriminated statements and claimed the assemblage was peaceful.
- The trial court credited the prosecution’s evidence, found the utterances seditious, and noted the actual advance of the crowd against law enforcement. The appellants did not furnish reasons to overturn those findings.
Issues:
- Whether the statements and conduct of Evangelista and Ramos constituted sedition under Section 8 of Act No. 292, as amended.
- Whether a mere public disorder (as argued by defense under United States v. Apurado) can be equated with sedition.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)