Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1932 > October 1932 Decisions > G.R. No. 36277 October 26, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CRISANTO EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

057 Phil 372:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 36277. October 26, 1932.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRISANTO EVANGELISTA and ABELARDO RAMOS, Defendants-Appellants.

Vicente Sotto for Appellants.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. COMMUNIST PARTY; SEDITION AND REBELLION. — Under the circumstances of this case, the statements made by the accused on the occasion related in the decision were clearly seditious. It must be noted that the disorder took place several months after the inauguration of the Communist Party and after the communists had already filed the minds of their followers with their revolting ideas in several meetings. That said utterances were really inciting the people to revolt is shown by the fact that the mass not only shouted a protest against the officers of the law, but did actually advance against them, and the latter had to use force in order to enforce the law.


D E C I S I O N


OSTRAND, J.:


In case No. 41830 (No. 36277 in the Supreme Court) the herein accused, Crisanto Evangelista and Abelardo Ramos, were charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with a violation of section 8 of Act No. 292, as amended. Upon trial the court below found the accused guilty and sentenced each of them to six months’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of P400 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and each of the accused to pay one-half of the costs. Thereupon the defendants appealed to this court.

The acts which gave rise to this accusation were as follows: On the first day of May, 1931, a parade was to be held by the communists in the municipality of Caloocan, within two and a half miles of the city limits of Manila, but as the permit for the parade had been revoked, a Constabulary officer appeared with his soldiers at the place to prevent the holding of the parade. The appellant, Crisanto Evangelista, who apparently was the leader of the people therein assembled to take part in the parade, held a conversation with the Constabulary officer about the permit and its revocation, after which Evangelista was allowed by the Constabulary officer to say a few words to the people for the purpose of informing them that the parade could not be held and that they should retire. But instead of telling the people to retire, he raised his fist, which the people approved by shouting "mabuhay", and then said: "Comrades or brethren, the municipal president, Mr. Aquino, has allowed us to hold the parade, but for reason unknown to me, the permit has been revoked. This shows that the big ones are persecuting and oppressing us, who are small, which they have no right to do." Then shouts were heard from the audience saying, "Let us fight them." The accused Abelardo Ramos, who was among the people, shouted "Let us fight them until death." Evangelista proceeded saying, "My heart bleeds", but could not continue because the officer stopped him and placed them both, Crisanto Evangelista and Abelardo Ramos, under arrest. Thereupon the mass began to advance against the Constabulary officer and soldiers, in an attempt to wrest Evangelista from the Constabulary and to continue the parade, but the soldiers made use of a water pump and dispersed them. There were found on the body of Crisanto Evangelista the permit issued by the municipal president and its revocation.

The appellants testified denying having said the words above quoted and attributed to them. They further claimed that the people were peaceful, but the trial court found the facts as above stated, and the appellants’ brief does not point out any data or reason why the finding of the trial court should not be upheld.

Under the circumstances of the case, the statements made by the accused on the occasion above related are clearly seditious. It must be noted that the disorder took place on May 1, 1931, that is, several months after the inauguration of the Communist Party and after the communists had already filled the minds of their followers with their revolting ideas in several meetings. That the said utterances were really inciting the people to revolt, is shown by the fact that the mass, not only shouted a protest against the officers of the law, but did actually advance against them, and the latter had to use force in order to enforce the law. The defense arguing upon the authority of United States v. Apurado (7 Phil., 422), maintains that there is no sedition here, because a mere disorder is not sedition, but the comparison is inadmissible. In the Apurado case, the people assembled at the chamber of the municipal council to ask for the removal of the municipal treasurer on account of religious differences. This court did not find any disorder in that case. It was a petition for redress of grievances made in more or less excited language, but the affair on the whole was peaceful and orderly; whereas in the instant case, there was an inducement to fight, an actual though unexpected fight and resistance against the authorities. It was simply the practical expression and repetition of the previous instigations to overthrow the government, made by the communist leaders before.

For these reasons and those given in cases G.R. Nos. 36275 1 and 36276, 2 the judgment appealed from will be affirmed with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Villa-Real, Hull, Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. People v. Evangelista, page 354, ante.

2. People v. Capadocia, page 364, ante.




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






October-1932 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 36765 October 1, 1932 - ED. A. KELLER & CO. v. KINKWA MERIYASU CO.

    057 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 37064 October 4, 1932 - EUGENIO VERAGUTH v. ISABELA SUGAR CO., ET AL.

    057 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 38171 October 6, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FRANCISCO MIRANDA

    057 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 36139 October 8, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. VICENTE ORENDAIN, ET AL.

    057 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. 36342 October 8, 1932 - IN RE: FRANCISCO VARELA CALDERON v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON, ET AL.

    057 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. 36394 October 11, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO MARBASA

    057 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 35490 October 12, 1932 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    057 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 37376 October 15, 1932 - APOLINARIO SAMILIN v. CFI OF PANGASINAN

    057 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. 38036 October 15, 1932 - MARTINIANO BENIGNO v. BERNARDO DE LA PEÑA, ET AL.

    057 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 35705 October 17, 1932 - CEBU ICE & COLD STORES CORP. v. CONSTANCIA VELEZ

    057 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 35726 October 17, 1932 - BRAULIO BALAGTAS, ET AL. v. CIRIACA ARGUELLES, ET AL.

    057 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. 38095 October 17, 1932 - MARIA PALISOC v. DIEGO LOCSIN

    057 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 35681 October 18, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. TEODORO I. LOCSON

    057 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 35252 October 21, 1932 - PNB v. UY TENG PIAO

    057 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. 36207 October 26, 1932 - IRINEO G. CARLOS v. MINDORO SUGAR CO., ET AL.

    057 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. 36275 October 26, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CRISANTO EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

    057 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. 36276 October 26, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GUILLERMO CAPADOCIA, ET AL.

    057 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 36277 October 26, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CRISANTO EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

    057 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 36278 October 26, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CRISANTO EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

    057 Phil 375

  • G.R. No. 38190 October 26, 1932 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO JAVIER

    057 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 35500 October 27, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE RUBIO

    057 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 35686 October 27, 1932 - ROSA DE LOS REYES v. GUILLERMA LEONARDO, ET AL.

    057 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 35903 October 27, 1932 - PRUDENCIA CHUA TAN, ET AL. v. LUCIA DEL ROSARIO

    057 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 36243 October 27, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. NICOLAS FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    057 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 38139 October 27, 1932 - WESTMINSTER BANK, LTD. v. LUIS P. TORRES, ET AL.

    057 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 37124 October 28, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARCADIO R. TANYAQUIN

    057 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 35368 October 29, 1932 - RAFAEL MORETA v. TAN CHAY

    057 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 35586 October 31, 1932 - CONSORCIA DICHOSO DE TICSON v. MARINO DE GOROSTIZA

    057 Phil 437