Case Summary (G.R. No. 207684)
Statutory Modes of Offense and Proof
Section 8 defines multiple modes—uttering seditious words; publishing scurrilous libels; inciting unlawful assemblies or conspiracies; disturbing public peace; and concealing such practices. The court followed established principle that proving any one substantive mode suffices for conviction, even if the information alleges several.
Effect of the Drama and Findings of Intent
In context—less than two years after civil government establishment, with remnant insurrections and an active Hong Kong-based junta—the play’s allegory unmistakably targeted contemporary authority. The Court held its principal object was to inflame hatred against the U.S. Government and to prompt armed resistance and secret organization, demonstrating the requisite criminal intent.
Rejection of Artistic-Literary Defense
Tolentino’s claim of purely literary or historical motive was untenable given timing, location, and overt allegorical devices. The theatrical presentation was intended to, and did in fact, stir public unrest and encourage rebellion rather than serve merely as entertainment.
Penalty Assessment and Currency Question
The trial court imposed a fine in “dollars” and imprisonment within statutory limits. The terminology conformed to the statute, and the P
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 207684)
Facts and Procedural History
- Aurelio Tolentino was charged by information with uttering seditious words and speeches and writing, publishing, and circulating scurrilous libels against the United States Government and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands.
- The alleged offense occurred on or about May 14, 1903, at the Teatro Libertad in Manila, Philippine Islands.
- Tolentino authored and directed a Tagalog theatrical work entitled “Kahapon, Ngayon at Bukas” (Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow).
- An exact English translation of the drama was included in the information, with specific passages highlighted as violative of the statute.
- At trial, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Tolentino wrote the drama, announced its presentation, and, together with his company, published and uttered its contents substantially as alleged.
- The sole question on appeal was whether those acts violated section 8 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission.
Statutory Provision (Act No. 292, § 8)
- “Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.”
Legal Issue
- Whether writing, publishing, and uttering the Tagalog drama “Kahapon, Ngayon at Bukas” constituted a violation of section