Inciting to Sedition US v. TOLENTINO FACTS: On 14 May 1903, Aurelio Tolentino and others presented a theatrical work written by the former entitled, !ahapon "#ayon at $ukas% in Ta#alo# lan#ua#e lan#ua#e at the Teatro eatro &ibertad &ibertad in Manila' Manila' The piece piece contained contained seditious seditious words and speeches, and scurrilous libels a#ainst the (o)ernment of the *+ and the nsula nsularr (o)er (o)ernme nment nt of the -hi -hilip lippin pine e sland slands s which which were were utter uttered ed durin# the presentation as if tendin# to obstruct the lawful o.cers in the e/ecution of their o.ces, insti#ate others to cabal and meet to#ether for unlawful purposes, su##est and incite rebellious conspiracies and riots and disturb the peace, safety and order of the community'
ISSUE: hether hether or not the theatrical theatrical perform performance ance of Tolentino olentino were were acts of incitin# to sedition'
HELD: YES. The theatrical performance of Tolentino were acts of incitin# to sedition' RATIO: The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play, in )iew of the time, place, and manner of its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of hatred and enmity enmity a#ains a#ainstt the Ameri American can people people and the (o)er (o)ernme nment nt of the *nited *nited +tates in the -hilippines, and we are satised that the principal ob2ect and intent of its author was to incite the people of the -hilippine slands to open and armed resistance to the constituted authorities, and to induce them to conspire to#ether for the secret or#aniation of armed forces, to be used when the opportunity presented itself, for the purpose of o)erthrowin# the present (o)ernment (o)ernment and settin# up another in its stead'
Delivery of Prisoners from Jail ALBERTO and INTIA vs. HON. DE LA CRUZ and ORBITA ('' "o' &531639 96 +7A 408 une 30, 1960
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of the respo responde ndent nt ud#e ud#e direct directin# in# petiti petitione oners rs to amend amend the infor informat mation ion led led in 7riminal 7ase "o' 9414 of the 7: of 7amarines +ur entitled, -eople of the -hilippines )ersus ;li#io Orbita%, so as to include as defendants (o)ernor Arma Armand ndo o 7led 7leder era a and and As Assi sist stant ant -ro)i ro)inc ncia iall arde arden n ose ose ;s ;sme mera rald lda a of 7amarines +ur' n said case, Orbita, a pro)incial #uard, was prosecuted for indelity in the custody of a prisoner for the escape of detention prisoner, -ablo s escape possible, and thus, ;smeralda and (o)' (o)' 7ledera should be e=ually #uilty of the o?ense with Orbita'
ISSUE: hether or not respondent ud#e erred in e=ually incriminatin# (o)' 7ledera and ;smeralda with Orbita for the escape of -ablo
HELD/DECISION: @;+' espondent ud#e erred erred in e=ually incriminatin# (o)' (o)' 7ledera and ;smeralda with Orbita for the escape of -ablo
RATIO: The o?ense of deli)erin# prisoners prisoners from 2ails as dened in Article Article 18 is usuall usually y commit committed ted by an outside whoB C1D remo)es from 2ail any person therein conned or CED helps him escape' f the o?ender is a public o.cer !"o "as #ustod$ o #"a%e o& t"e 'isone, he is liable for indelity in the custod custody y of prison prisoners ers dened dened and penali penalie ed d under under Articl Article e EE EE3 3 of the e)ised -enal 7ode' +ince (o)' 7ledera as #o)ernor, is the 2ailer of the pro)ince and ose ;smeralda is the assistant pro)incial warden, they cannot be prosecuted for the escape of -ablo
Evasion of service of sentence ADELAIDA TANE(A vs. HON. )UD(E )UD( E *ASA+AYAN *ASA+AYAN FACTS: -etitioner -etitioner Adelaida Tane#a Tane#a appealed her con)iction of the crime of slander to the 7ity 7ourt of Fueon 7ity' :ound #uilty once a#ain by the 7:, she was sent senten ence ced d to su su?e ?err E0 day days of arr arresto esto meno menorr' The The 7A a.r a.rmed med her her con)iction' The 7ity 7ourt of Fueon 7ity directed that the e/ecution of the sentence be set for EG anuary 198' On petitioner>s motion, e/ecution was deferred to 1E :ebruary 198 at 6B30 am' At the appointed day and hour, petitioner failed to appear promptin# espondent ud#e Masakayan to issue warrants for her arrest but the former was ne)er arrested' More than a year later, -etitioner mo)ed to =uash the warrants on the #round of prescription of penalty but such plea was re2ected and espondent ud#e issued another warrant of arrest'
ISSUE: hether or not the penalty has prescribed' prescribed'
HELD/DECISION: "o' The penalty has not prescribed' -etition -etition dismissed'
RATIO: $y Article 9E of the e)ised -enal 7ode, li#ht penalties Himposed by nal sentenceH prescribe in one year' The period of prescription of penalties I so the succeedin# Article 93 pro)ides I Hshall commence to run from the date when the culprit should e)ade the ser)ice of his sentenceH' *nder Art' 1G of the -7, the elements of e)asion of ser)ice of sentence areB C1D the o?ender is a con)ict by nal 2ud#mentJ CED he His ser)in# his sentence which consists in depri)ation of libertyHJ and C3D he e)ades ser)ice of sentence by escapin# durin# the term of his sentence' This must be so' :or, by the e/press terms of the statute, statute, a con)ic con)ictt e)ade e)ades s Hser) Hser)ice ice of his senten sentenceH ceH,, by Hescap Hescapin# in# durin# the term of his imprisonment by reason of nal 2ud#ment'H ndeed, e)asion of sentence is but another e/pression of the term H2ail breakin#H' :or pres prescr crip ipti tion on of pena penalt lty y of impr impris ison onme ment nt impo impose sed d by nal nal sent senten ence ce to comm commen ence ce to run, run, the the culp culpri ritt sh shou ould ld esca escape pe duri durin# n# the the ter term of su such ch imprisonm imprisonment' ent' Ad)erti Ad)ertin# n# to the facts, we ha)e here the case of a con)ict con)ict
who I sentenced to imprisonment by nal 2ud#ment I was thereafter thereafter ne)er placed in connement' -rescription of penalty, then, does not run in her fa)or'
