Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17493)
Facts:
United States v. Gregorio Perfecto and Maximo Mendoza, G.R. No. 17493, March 04, 1922, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johnson, J., writing for the Court.
On October 11, 1920 an assistant prosecuting attorney of the City of Manila filed a criminal complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila charging Gregorio Perfecto and Maximo Mendoza with sedition alleged to be in violation of Section 8 of Act No. 292, as amended by Section 1 of Act No. 1692. The defendants demurred, arguing (a) the complaint was illegally presented by a political entity without authority and lacked required formal requisites; (b) the facts alleged did not constitute a crime and, in any event, the challenged statutes were null as violative of the organic law; and (c) the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction over the persons and the subject matter.
The demurrer was supported by a memorandum; the prosecuting attorney filed a reply. The trial court overruled the demurrer, and upon arraignment both defendants pleaded not guilty and were tried. Judge C. A. Imperial, in a considered opinion, found the evidence insufficient as to Mendoza and discharged him, awarding one-half of the costs de oficio. The trial court found Perfecto guilty, imposed a P500 fine (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency) and ordered payment of one-half of the costs. Perfecto appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors of law and fact.
On appeal Perfecto challenged: the overruling of the demurrer; the complaint's caption (styled “The People of the Philippine Islands” rather than “United States of America”); the constitutionality of Acts Nos. 2667 and 2886; the validity of Act No. 292 as amended by Act No. 1692; the trial court’s jurisdiction; and, on the facts, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.
The Supreme Court reviewed the record, stating that even if it assumed arguendo the challenged statutes were illegal or unconstitutional, the evidence did not establish that Perfecto willfully, maliciously, and unlawfully violated Section 8 of Act No. 292, as amended. Emphasizing the protection afforded criticism of public officials by the free press under paragraph 13 of Section 3 of the Jones Law, and relying on precedent such as U.S. v. Bustos (37 Phil. 731), the Court concluded the publication in question lacked the requisite...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in overruling the defendants’ demurrer to the complaint and in allowing the prosecution to proceed?
- Was the complaint defective or illegal because it was captioned “The People of the Philippine Islands” rather than in the name of the “United States of America”?
- Are Acts Nos. 2667 and 2886, and Act No. 292 as amended by Act No. 1692, unconstitutional and therefore void?
- Was the trial court without jurisdiction to try and decide the cause?
- Did the evidence adduced at trial suffice to prove that appellant Perfecto wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully committed the sedition char...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)