Case Summary (G.R. No. 235020)
Key Dates
Events: December 13–16, 1920 (arrest of a woman connected with a Constabulary household, subsequent shooting of Private Macasinag on December 14, 1920, and the Constabulary armed reprisal on the evening of December 15, 1920; investigation on December 16, 1920).
Decision date of the appellate court: March 4, 1922.
Applicable Law and Legal Framework
Primary statutes applied: Act No. 292 (Treason and Sedition Law, including section 5, subdivision 3 defining sedition) and the penalty provisions (section 6) prescribing fines and imprisonment up to P10,000 and ten years respectively. Act No. 619 (Constabulary statute) was referenced regarding confessions; its section 4 was noted to have been repealed by the first Administrative Code, but the evidentiary principle embodied therein (that confessions must be free and voluntary) continues as a rule of jurisprudence. The case arose under the statutory framework established by the Philippine Commission and Insular Government applicable at the time.
Facts — Nexus and Triggering Events
A woman associated with a Constabulary household was arrested on December 13, 1920; on December 14, police in Intramuros had an encounter resulting in the shooting and mortal wounding of Private Crispin Macasinag. Rumors and resentment at Santa Lucia Barracks intensified. On the evening of December 15, 1920, groups of Constabulary soldiers left the barracks (some by sawing out window bars) armed with rifles and ammunition and divided into platoons that fired on Manila police and civilians at multiple locations in Intramuros and adjacent areas. The shooting caused multiple deaths (including policemen and civilians) and serious injuries. General Crame and other officers eventually rounded up and disarmed many soldiers; an on-site investigation and written statements were obtained on December 16, 1920.
Procedural History
Two informations were filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila: one charging sedition (Act No. 292) and another charging murder and serious physical injuries. The sedition and the homicide cases were tried separately before different judges. Initially most accused pleaded guilty but, after testimony began, were permitted to substitute pleas of not guilty. The prosecution introduced seventy-seven written statements (Exhibits C to C-76) as evidence, together with eyewitness testimony. The trial court overruled defenses challenging voluntariness of the statements, found guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and sentenced all defendants to the maximum imprisonment (ten years) under section 6 of Act No. 292; selected corporals and sergeants were also fined (P5,000 for certain corporals and P10,000 for sergeants), with costs apportioned.
Issues Presented on Appeal
- Whether Exhibits C to C-76 (the seventy-seven written confessions/statements) were admissible — specifically whether they were freely and voluntarily made (assignment of error No. 1 in the sedition case).
- Whether a conspiracy among the accused existed or whether their conduct was the product of crowd psychology (assignment of error No. 4 in the sedition case).
- Whether the facts established a violation of the Treason and Sedition Law (Act No. 292), specifically subdivision 3 of section 5 (assignment of error No. 5).
Standard of Review and Credibility Findings
The appellate court applied the long-established rule of deference to the trial court’s findings on credibility and fact-finding, intervening only where the record showed a substantial overlooked or misinterpreted circumstance. The court cited prior authorities to support this standard and found no such overriding circumstance in the record.
Analysis — Admissibility and Voluntariness of the Confessions (Exhibits C to C-76)
Legal principle: Confessions are admissible only if made freely and voluntarily, without violence, intimidation, threat, promise, or inducement; the burden to prove involuntariness rests on the accused. Although section 4 of Act No. 619 had been repealed, the jurisprudential rule remained. Facts supporting admissibility in the record included: the interrogations and written statements were taken with translation where necessary; statements were signed in the presence of witnesses; sixty-nine defendants reiterated their guilt in open court; attesting officers and witnesses who took the statements were not successfully impeached; and there was no credible evidence of a promise of transfer to Mindanao or other inducement to fabricate confessions. The court noted that the defendants, being members of the Constabulary (an organized, trained force), would understand the nature and consequences of their statements and act prudently. On these facts the trial court did not err in admitting the Exhibits C to C-76 as evidence.
Analysis — Existence of Conspiracy
Legal principle: When two or more persons combine to perform a criminal act, each is liable for acts done in furtherance of the common design; conspiracy may be proved by inference from surrounding acts, conditions, and circumstances. Although individual statements often answered “Nobody” to the question who asked them to join, the court found that a common design and joint intent to avenge perceived police abuses—manifested by coordinated departure from the barracks, division into attack groups, use of military training to execute the operation, and the pursuit of a single object (revenge against the city police)—supported a reasonable inference of conspiracy. The court rejected the “psychology of crowds” defense as insufficient to negate proof of joint assent and shared purpose. Given the coordinated nature of the attack and the concerted acts of participants in different roles, the trial court properly concluded that a conspiracy existed and did not err in holding each participant responsible for the acts in furtherance of the common design.
Analysis — Applicability of Act No. 292 and Conviction for Sedition
Act No. 292 penalizes persons who rise publicly and tumultuously to obtain by force, or outside legal methods, specific objectives, including inflicting acts of hate or revenge upon officials or agents of government. The appellate court rejected the defendants’ argument that subdivision 3 required the offending party to be a private citizen and t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 235020)
Court, Citation, and Decision
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 17748, March 4, 1922; reported at 43 Phil. 64.
- Decision authored by Malcolm, J.
- Justices concurring: Araullo, C. J., Johnson, Street, Avancena, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ.
- Case arose from a public disturbance and uprising by certain members of the Philippine Constabulary against the Manila police; appeals filed from convictions for violation of Act No. 292 (Treason and Sedition Law).
Nature of Proceedings and Issues Presented
- Defendants indicted and tried in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on charges of sedition (Act No. 292) and, separately, on charges of murder and serious physical injuries.
- All defendants convicted in the trial court of violating Act No. 292 and sentenced either to the maximum or near-maximum penalties prescribed by that law; all defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
- On appeal, principal issues presented for review:
- Admissibility of written confessions introduced as Exhibits C to C‑76 (assignment of error No. 1, sedition case; No. 2, murder case).
- Existence of a conspiracy among the accused (assignment of error No. 4, sedition case; No. 3, murder case).
- Proper application and sufficiency of evidence to support convictions for violation of the Treason and Sedition Law (assignment of error No. 5, sedition case).
- Two other assignments of error (No. 2 and No. 3 in the sedition case as discussed) received limited discussion by the Court and were related to factual disputes already considered under conspiracy and awareness of the policemen.
Statement of Facts — Background and Triggering Events
- On December 13, 1920, policemen of the city of Manila arrested a woman who was a member of the household of a Constabulary soldier stationed at Santa Lucia Barracks. Her arrest was regarded by some Constabulary soldiers as an outrage and produced friction between the Manila police force and members of the Philippine Constabulary.
- December 14, 1920, about sunset: Policeman Artemio Mojica, posted on Calle Real in Intramuros, had an encounter with Constabulary soldiers that resulted in the shooting of Private Crispin (Crispin) Macasinag of the Constabulary. Private Macasinag was seriously and, as afterwards appeared, mortally wounded.
- The shooting of Macasinag engendered deep resentment among soldiers at Santa Lucia Barracks and a desire for revenge against the Manila police.
Military Authorities’ Immediate Response and Rumor
- Officers aware of the excitement: Captain Page, commanding officer of Santa Lucia Barracks, increased the number of guards and confined all soldiers in the Barracks immediately after the Macasinag shooting.
- December 15, 1920, afternoon: A rumor spread among soldiers that policeman Mojica remained on duty in Intramuros and that Private Macasinag had died. This rumor significantly contributed to precipitating a movement for reprisal by Constabulary soldiers against the policemen.
Escape from Santa Lucia Barracks and Arms Acquisition
- About 7:00 p.m., December 15, 1920:
- Corporal Ingles of the Fourth Company approached Private Nicolas Torio (man in charge of quarters) and asked to let soldiers out through the window of the Fourth Company quarters.
- Private Torio permitted Private Francisco Garcia of the Second Company to saw out the window bars, allowing soldiers to escape with rifles and ammunition under command of their sergeants and corporals.
- Once outside, soldiers divided into groups to attack the city police force.
Sequence of Attacks, Locations, and Casualties
Calle Real and Cabildo:
- A platoon of about ten or twelve Constabulary soldiers on Calle Real fired toward the intersection of Calles Real and Cabildo where American policeman Driskill conversed with Jacumin (a field clerk in the U.S. Army). Both Driskill and Jacumin were shot and died soon afterwards.
- Policeman Driskill, though mortally wounded, returned fire with his revolver.
- Jacumin was killed despite complying with the command "Hands up!" and raising both arms.
- A street car stopped at the corner; Constabulary soldiers fired a volley into the car:
- Victor de Torres (passenger) killed instantly.
- Civilian passengers Gregorio Cailles, Vicente Antonio, and Mariano Cortes grievously wounded.
- Father Jose Tahon, priest of the Cathedral of Manila, attempted to persuade the Constabulary to cease firing and advanced to administer spiritual aid to the wounded.
Calle Real and Magallanes:
- Captain William E. Wichman, assistant chief of police, riding a motorcycle driven by Policeman Saplala, arrived at the corner of Calles Real and Magallanes; a volley from Constabulary soldiers resulted in the instantaneous death of Captain Wichman and the subsequent death of Policeman Saplala.
Near Meisic police station on Calle Real:
- A police patrol was fired upon by Constabulary soldiers positioned in the courtyard of San Agustin Church, resulting in the deaths of patrolmen Trogue and Sison.
Sunken Gardens opposite the Aquarium on Calle General Luna:
- A platoon of between thirty and forty Constabulary soldiers formed in a firing line on the Sunken Gardens (east side of Calle General Luna opposite the Aquarium) and fired upon:
- A motorcycle occupied by Sergeant Armada and driven by Policeman Policarpio, mortally wounding Policarpio (the motorcycle was passing in front of the Aquarium toward Calle Real).
- Several volleys were fired indiscriminately into the Luneta police station and the office of the secret service across Calles General Luna and Padre Burgos; fortunately no one was injured in those latter volleys.
- A platoon of between thirty and forty Constabulary soldiers formed in a firing line on the Sunken Gardens (east side of Calle General Luna opposite the Aquarium) and fired upon:
Attempts at Containment and Return to Barracks
- General Rafael Crame (Chief of the Constabulary) and Captain Page rounded up some soldiers in the streets; other soldiers returned to the Barracks and were disarmed.
- No list of names was made at the time for those rounded up or returning.
Investigation and Assembly; Language and Procedure in Taking Statements
- Morning of December 16, 1920:
- Colonel Lucien R. Sweet of the Constabulary, under orders from General Crame and assisted by other Constabulary officers and later by fiscals of the city of Manila, commenced an investigation.
- Colonel Sweet ordered assembly of all soldiers in Santa Lucia Barracks present at the prior night (numbering about one hundred and eighty) and separated them into companies on the parade grounds.
- Colonel Sweet, speaking in English with Captain Silvino Gallardo interpreting into Tagalog, addressed the soldiers and made two statements asking who had been out the prior night and who had participated in the shooting.
- Colonel Sweet testified: he thought seventy‑two (seventy‑three) present named five (four) others; he asked those who went out for any purpose to step forward (gave them five minutes), then asked those who took part in the shooting to step forward; they did.
- The names of the four who took part but were not present were noted by Captain Gallardo.
- The statements of seventy‑seven soldiers were taken in writing on December 16; the same questionnaire prepared by the fiscal of the city of Manila was used for each soldier and filled out in English or Spanish and translated into dialects when requested.
- Each statement was signed by the soldier in the presence of two or three witnesses.
Exhibits C to C‑76 — Written Statements and Evidence
- The prosecution introduced seventy‑seven written statements as Exhibits C to C‑76, inclusive; with the exception of those by Daniel Coralde, Nemesio Gamus, and Venancio Mira, all were identified by Constabulary officers, interpreters, and typists who took them.
- Sixty‑nine of the defendants reiterated their guilt in open court.
- Typical form of the confession illustrated by Sergeant Graciano L. Cabrera’s statement (taken in Spanish and interpreted into Tagalog), reproduced in full in the record and transcribed in the decision:
- Cabrera identified himself: "Graciano L. Cabrera, 24 years of age, single, sergeant of the first company of the General Service of the Constabulary, residing in Santa Lucia Barracks."
- He stated belonging to the First Company, garrisoned in Santa Lucia Barracks the previous afternoon (December 15, 1920).
- He admitted leaving the barracks at about 7 o'clock the previous evening.
- He stated the purpose: "We went in search of the policemen and secret service men of Manila. It has been sometime now since we have been having a standing grudge against the police of Manila..." and described grievances (arrest and alleged abuse of a comrade’s wife, false arrest of two soldiers, shooting of Macasinag, and rumors of orders to policemen to fire upon Constabulary soldiers).
- On how he joined: he saw soldiers jumping through the window and followed because he would be left alone in the barracks.
- On who asked him to join: "Nobody."
- On firing: he could not precisely tell how many shots he fired, only that he fired more than once; could not tell whether he hit a policeman or civilian; could not precisely name the streets where he fired.
- On arms: he carried a carbine and placed twenty cartridges in his pocket, but could not say how many cartridges he used.
- On manner of leaving the barracks: "By the window of the quarters of the Fourth Company, through the grating which I found cut off."
- He stated the confession was made vol