Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5527)
Facts:
The United States v. Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, Lope K. Santos, Fidel A. Reyes, and Faustino Aguilar, G.R. No. 5527. December 22, 1910, the Supreme Court (Johnson, J., writing for the Court; Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concurring). Johnson, J., delivered the decision.The plaintiff-appellee was The United States (acting through the prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila); the defendants-appellants were Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, Lope K. Santos, Fidel A. Reyes, and Faustino Aguilar, charged as the editors/proprietors and managers of the newspaper El Renacimiento for alleged libel against Dean C. Worcester, member of the Philippine Commission and Secretary of the Interior.
On November 5, 1908 the acting prosecuting attorney, L. M. Southworth, filed an information in the Court of First Instance (Judge Chas. H. Smith presiding on the preliminary matters) charging the five defendants with publishing, in the October 30, 1908 issue of El Renacimiento, a Spanish editorial (with English translation) that imputed corrupt and criminal official conduct to Dean C. Worcester. Warrants of arrest were issued November 5; the defendants were arrested, presented bail, and sought time to answer. Southworth appended affidavits stating he had conducted the preliminary investigation in his office under section 39 of Act No. 183 (Manila Charter) as amended by Act No. 612.
Between November 7 and November 12, 1908 the defendants filed successive motions: to quash the warrants for lack of a judge-conducted preliminary examination (invoking General Orders No. 58 and the Philippine Bill, July 1, 1902); for production of the prosecuting attorney’s preliminary investigation; and for a court-conducted preliminary hearing. The Court of First Instance denied each motion, relying on section 2 of Act No. 612 (which limits the right to a judge-held preliminary examination in the city of Manila where the prosecuting attorney has presented an information after due investigation) and the earlier decision in United States v. Wilson, 4 Phil. Rep. 317.
Demurrers by the defendants (arguing lack of jurisdiction and that the acts did not constitute libel) were overruled. Each defendant was arraigned (plea of not guilty entered), and separate trials followed before Judge A. S. Crossfield with assessors as requested by defendants. After trial, Crossfield and the assessors found Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, and Fidel A. Reyes guilty: Ocampo sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and P2,000 fine; Reyes to six months and P2,000; Kalaw to nine months and P3,000. The cases against Lope K. Santos and Faustino Aguilar were dismissed for insufficient evidence.
The convicted defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors including (1) denial of...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Were the appellants entitled, as of right, to a judge-conducted preliminary examination before arrest and trial in the Court of First Instance, City of Manila?
- Is section 2 of Act No. 612 (denying a preliminary examination as of right in specified Manila cases) unconstitutional under the Philippine Bill (Act of Congress, July 1, 1902) or otherwise violative of due process?
- Did the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction to issue warrants and to try the appellants where the prosecuting attorney had conducted the preliminary investigation and presented a sworn information?
- Do the published editorial statements, fairly construed and as charged, constitute the crime of libel under Act No. 277?
- Was the admission of witnesses’ opinions (testimony that the editorial was intended to refer to Dean C. Worcester) proper and competent evidence to identify the person libeled?
- Were the convictions of the individual appellants justif...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)