Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2990)
Facts of the Case
Between June 9 and 24, 1947, petitioner had his photograph taken to simulate hanging by a tree limb. He distributed copies of this photograph, accompanied by a purported suicide letter signed “Alberto Reveniera,” to newspapers nationwide and abroad. The letter excoriated President Roxas’s administration, comparing it to Nazi and Fascist regimes, urging the populace to burn official portraits and foment rebellion. Petitioner admitted authorship of both the photograph façade and the libelous letter.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework
- Revised Penal Code, Article 142 (Inciting to Sedition by means of scurrilous libel).
- 1935 Philippine Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech subject to statutory restrictions for public order and national security.
Majority Opinion: Scope of Freedom of Expression
Justice Bengzon recognized that the Constitution protects free speech but does not confer immunity for irresponsible uses of language. Statutes penalizing seditious libel have been upheld where writings tend to incite illegal action against government authority. The Court referenced both historical common-law precedents and analogous U.S. statutes (Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1917–18) to underscore that sedition laws are valid so long as intent to provoke unlawful conduct is proven.
Majority Opinion: Nature of the Communication
The Court found the letter to be a scurrilous libel:
- It denigrated the entire government and its duly constituted authorities as “dirty,” “crooks,” and “Hitlers and Mussolinis.”
- It called for burning of presidential images and portrayed the author’s suicide as martyrdom for the cause of rebellion.
- It cited armed uprisings and banditry (Hukbalahaps, Leyte depredations) as sympathetic examples, thereby justifying violent defiance of lawful authority.
- The phrase “put under juez de cuchillo” was construed as advocating summary execution of President Roxas and his ministers.
Majority Opinion: Seditious Tendency and Conviction
The Court concluded that the letter’s immediate tendency was to stir disaffection and incite violence against the government. Such a wholesale, contemptuous condemnation without reasoned critique transcended protected speech and invited disloyalty. The conviction under Article 142 was therefore upheld, with costs.
Dissenting Opinion: Scope of Criticism Versus Incitement
Justice Tuason, joined by Paras C.J. and Feria J., argued that the publication amounted to vehement political criticism rather than a genuine call to violent action. He emphasized:
- The note targeted only the administration, not the constitutional form of government.
- References to Hitler and Mussolini were metaphorical comparisons to perceived corruption, not endorsements of dictatorship.
- The author’s suicide theme and pseudonymous address to an imaginary family undermined any realistic capacity to influence the public.
Dissenting Opinion: Absence of Clear and Present Danger
The dissent invoked the “clear and present danger” test (Holm
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-2990)
Procedural History
- The petitioner, Oscar Espuelas y Mendoza, was charged with violation of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code (inciting to sedition) before the Court of First Instance of Bohol.
- After trial, he was convicted for writing, publishing, and circulating scurrilous libels against the Government and duly constituted authorities.
- The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Facts
- Between June 9 and June 24, 1947, in Tagbilaran, Bohol, Espuelas arranged for photographs in which he appeared hanging from a tree limb, though he actually stood on a barrel.
- He authored and circulated under the pseudonym “Alberto Reveniera” a “suicide note” addressed to a fictitious wife and children, accompanied by the staged photographs.
- The note was sent to newspapers and weeklies of general circulation in Bohol, throughout the Philippines, and abroad, including the Free Press, Evening News, Bisaya, and Lamdag.
- The text of the note contained:
- A declaration of suicide motivated by shame over the “dirty” administration of President Roxas.
- Direct exhortations to burn President Roxas’s pictures and teach future generations to do likewise.
- Appeals to write to President Truman and Winston Churchill, charging that “Hitlers and Mussolinis” infested the Philippine government.
- References to the Hukbalahaps in Central Luzon, banditry in Leyte, and the attempted assassination of President Roxas, suggesting armed rebellion was preferable to the current administration.
- A closing assertion that, lacking power to put Roxas’s men “under juez de cuchillo” (summary execution by knife), he sacrificed himself as a protest.
Issue
- Whether the writing, publication, and circulation of the pseudonymous “suicide note” and accompanying photograph constitute a scurrilous libel against the Government and incitement to sedition under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code.
Applicable Law
- Article 142, Revised Penal Code:
Punishes anyone who, without direct participation in sedition, incites others to sedition by speeches, writings, or libels against the Gove