Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > January 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1989 January 23, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CELEDONIO NERY

004 Phil 158:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1989. January 23, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. CELEDONIO NERY, Defendant-Appellant.

J . L. Quintos, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; SEDITION; OFFENSES AGAINST THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES CONSTABULARY. — An offense against the superior "authority in the Constabulary" is not a cognate offense to an offense against the sovereignty or laws of the State.

2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; SEDITION’; COMPLAINT. — The court can not, under a complaint for sedition, find the defendant guilty of the crime defined in section 1 of Act No. 619.

3. ID.; COMPLAINT; COGNATE OFFENSES. — When a person is charged in a complaint with a crime, under the provisions of General Orders, No. 58, and the evidence does not show that he is guilty of the crime charged, but does show that he is guilty of some other lesser offense, the court may sentence him for the other lesser offense, provided the lesser offense is a cognate offense and is included in the complaint filed with the court.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The defendant in this case was charged with the crime of sedition and was tried in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Nueva Ecija. After hearing the testimony in the case and the arguments of the counsel for the State and the defendant, the court found that the evidence was not sufficient to support the charge of sedition, but did find that the evidence was sufficient to find the defendant guilty of a violation of section 1 of Act No. 619, and sentenced him to five years de presidio and to pay the costs.

The evidence shows that the defendant, in the month of February, 1903, was a Constabulary soldier, and was stationed in the pueblo of San Jose, in said province; that the Constabulary were attacked by the band of Felipe Salvador, called "Santa Iglesia," composed of about one hundred armed persons; that at the time of the attack the defendant was acting as corporal of the guard; that the band was armed with firearms, bolos, and clubs; that the object of the said band was to capture the arms of the Constabulary; that when the said band retired from the attack the said defendant retired with them; that he was the only member of the Constabulary who was captured or went away with said band; that later the accused was captured in company with said band of Felipe-Salvador.

The defendant offered no defense whatever.

The evidence adduced in this case clearly fails to show that the defendant was guilty of the crime of sedition, as defined in section 5 of Act No. 292 of the Commission, and the question is whether or not a Court of First Instance, where a person is charged with the crime of sedition, can find the defendant guilty of the crime defined in Act No. 619, an act entitled "An act to promote good order and discipline in the Philippines Constabulary."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 1 of Act No. 619 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any member of the Constabulary who begins, excites, causes, or joins in any opposition or resistance to, or defiance of, any superior authority in the Constabulary with intent to usurp, subvert, or override the same, or who, being present, does not use his utmost endeavor to suppress all such opposition, resistance, or defiance, or who, having knowledge of any such opposition, resistance, or defiance being intended, does not, without delay, give information thereof to such superior authority, shall be fined not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not exceeding ten years, or both."cralaw virtua1aw library

Act No. 619 is an act to promote good order and discipline in the Philippines Constabulary. Section 1 of said act punishes the members of the Constabulary who in any way manifest or excite or join in any opposition or resistance or defiance of "any superior authority in the Constabulary" with intent to usurp, subvert, or override such authority; or who, being present, does not use his utmost endeavor to suppress such opposition or resistance or who does not give information to such "superior authority"

Act No. 292 of the Civil Commission, creating the punishment for the crime of sedition, was enacted for the purpose of punishing resistance to the lawful authority and laws of the Government

Act No. 619 is purely disciplinary in its operation, enacted for the purpose of preserving the loyalty and obedience of the members of the Constabulary to the "superior authority in the Constabulary." The offense created by Act No. 619 is not a cognate offense to the crime of sedition. When a person is charged in a complaint with a crime under the provisions of General Orders, No. 58, and the evidence does not show that he is guilty of the crime charged, but does show that he is guilty of some crime or other lesser offense, the court may sentence him for the other lesser offense, provided the lesser offense is a cognate offense and is included in the complaint with the court.

An offense against the "superior authority in the Constabulary" is not a cognate offense to an offense against the sovereignty or laws of the State and the court could not under a complaint for sedition, defined in section 5 of Act No. 292, find the defendant guilty of the crime defined in section 1 of Act No. 619. Therefore the sentence in this case is reversed and the provincial fiscal is hereby ordered to present a complaint against the defendant for a violation of the provisions of Act No. 619 of the Philippine Commission within ten days after this cause is received by the clerk of the Court of First Instance of said province. The clerk of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Nueva Ecija is hereby directed, upon receipt of this decision, to give the fiscal of said province immediate notice of the foregoing decision. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1289 January 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO BOSITO ET AL.

    004 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 1523 January 4, 1906

    UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SOSA

    004 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 1669 January 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EVANGELISTA

    004 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 1945 January 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL NAVARRETE ET AL.

    004 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 1287 January 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BAGUIAO

    004 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 1290 January 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO AYAO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. 2094 January 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL TOMINES

    004 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 1314 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE SAMSON

    004 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 1340 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CLARO MENDOZA

    004 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 1643 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO DE LA CRUZ ET AL.

    004 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 2246 January 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BAILON

    004 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 1536 January 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROMULO AGAS

    004 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 1565 January 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE NER

    004 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 2362 January 14, 1905 - FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON v. J. J. PETERSON

    004 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 1615 January 16, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES ASCUE

    004 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 1692 January 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO PERDON

    004 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 1874 January 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ONGTENGCO

    004 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 1222 January 21, 1906

    UNITED STATES v. MATEO LAPUS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 1767 January 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GAVINO GARCIA

    004 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 1851 January 23, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO TRINIDAD

    004 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 1855 January 23, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO COFRADA

    004 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 1989 January 23, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CELEDONIO NERY

    004 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 1737 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PETRONILO PATIÑO ET AL.

    004 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 1757 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO LASCANO

    004 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 1826 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO GABRIEL

    004 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. 1827 January 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LEONARDO SANTIAGO

    004 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 1541 January 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SANTILLAN

    004 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 1828 January 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FERMIN MANGADO

    004 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 1832 January 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN SOSA ET AL.

    004 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 1957 January 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO ASILO

    004 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 1958 January 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN CABINGAN

    004 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 1687 January 31, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA SOLIS ET AL.

    004 Phil 178