G.R. No. L-2990
December 17, 1951
OSCAR ESPUELAS Y MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. !E PEOPLE O" !E P!#L#PP#NES, respondent.
Carlos P. Garcia, Cosme P. Garcia and B.E. Enerio for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor Jesus A. Avanceña for respondent.
$ENGZON, J.:
Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code punishes those who shall write, write, publish or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the Philip pines or an of the dul dul constituted authorities thereof or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots or which tend to stir up the people againts the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the communit. !he appellant "scar #spuelas $endo%a was, after trial, convicted in the Court of & irst 'nstance of (ohol of a violation of the above article. !he conviction was affirmed b the Court of Appeals, because according to said court. )About the time compromised between *une + and *une 24, 1+4, both dates inclusive, in the town of !agbilaran, !agbilaran, (ohol, "scar #spuelas $endo%a had his picture ta-en, ma-ing it to appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope suspended form the limb of the tree, when in truth and in fact, he was merel standing on a barrel #/hibit A, C0'. After securing copies of his photograph, #spuelas sent copies of same to several ne wspapers and wee-lies of general circulation #/hibit C, &, G, , ', not onl in the Province of (ohol but also throughout the Philippines and abroad, for their publication with a suicide note or letter, wherein he made to appear that it was written b a fictitious suicide, Alberto Reveniera and addressed to the latter3s supposed wife translation of which letter or note in hereunder reproduced 5earest wife and children, bur me five meters deep. "ver m grave don3t plant a cross or put floral wreaths, for ' don3t need them. Please don3t bur me in the lonel place. (ur me in the Catholic cemeter. Although ' have committed suicide, ' still have the right to burried among Christians. (ut don3t pra for me. 5on3t remember me, and don3t feel sorr. 6ipe me out of our lives. $ dear wife, if someone as-s to ou wh ' committed suicide, tell them ' di d it because ' was not pleased with the administration of Ro/as. !ell !ell the whole world about this. And if the as- wh ' did not li-e the administration of of Ro/as, point out to them them the situation in Central 7u%on, the 7ete.
5ear wife, write to President !ruman and Churchill. !ell them that here in the Philippines our government is infested with man itlers and $ussolinis. lawphil.net
!each our children to burn pictures of Ro/as if and when the come across one. ' committed suicide because ' am ashamed of our government under Ro/as. ' cannot hold high m brows to the world with this dirt government. ' committed suicide because ' have no power to put under *ue% de Cuchillo all the Ro/as people now in power. 8o, ' sacrificed m own self. !he accused admitted the fact that he wrote the note or letter above 9uoted and caused its publication in the ree Press, the Evenin! "ews, the Bisa#as, $amdan! and other local periodicals and that he had impersonated one Alberto Reveniera b signing said pseudonmous name in said note or letter and posed hi mself as Alberto Reveniera in a picture ta-en wherein he was shown hanging b the end of a rope tied to a limb of a tree.) !he latter is a scurrilous li bel against the Government. 1 't calls our government one of croo-s a nd dishonest persons dirt infested with :a%is and a &ascistis i.e. dictators. And the communication reveals a tendenc to produce dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with the disposition to remain loal to the government. 2 6ritings which tend to overthrow or undermine the securit of the government or to wea-en the confidence of the people in the government are against the public peace, and are criminal not onl because the tend to incite to a breach of the peace but because the are conducive to the destruction of the ver government itself 8ee 1+ Am. 7aw Rep. 1;11. Regarded as seditious libels the were the sub ). . . the great factors of government, consisting of the 8overeign, the Parliament, the ministers of state, the courts of
!he ?nited 8tates punished seditious utterances in the act of *ul 14, 1+@ containing provisions parallel to our own article 142. Analogous prohibitions are found in the #spionage Act of *une 1+1 and the seditious libel amendment thereto in $a, 1+1@. "f course such legislation despite its general merit is liable to become a weapon of intolerance constraining the free e/pression of opinion, or mere agitation for reform. (ut so long as there is a sufficient safeguard b re9uiring intent on the part of t he defendant to produce illegal action0such legislation aimed at anarch and radicalism presents largel a %uestion of polic# . "ur 7egislature has spo-en in article 142 and the law must be applied. 'n disposing of this appeal, careful thought had to be given to the fundamental right to freedom of speech. et the freedom of speech secured b the Constitution )does not confer an absolute right to spea- or publish without responsibilit whatever one ma choose.) 't is not )unbridled license that gives immunit for ever possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom. 4) 8o statutes against sedition have guarant, although the should not be interpreted so as to agitate for institutional changes. ; :ot to be restrained is the privilege of an citi%en to critici%e his government officials and to submit his criticism to the )free trade of ideas) a nd to plead for its acceptance in )the competition of the mar-et.) owever, let such criticism be specific and therefore constructive, reasoned or tempered, and not a contemptuous condemnation of the entire government set0up. 8uch wholesale attac- is nothing less than an invitation to disloalt to the government. 'n the article now under e/amination one will find no particular ob
!he essence of seditious libel ma be said to its immediate tendenc to stir up general discontent to the pitch of illegal courses that is to sa to induce people to resort to illegal methods other than those provided b the Constitution, in order to repress the evils which press upon their minds. @ )!he idea of violence prevades the whole letter) sas *ustice Paredes of the Court of Appeals. )!he mere fact that a person was so disgusted with his )dirt government) to the point of ta-ing his own life, is not merel a sign of disillusionment it is a clear act to arouse its readers a sense of dissatisfaction against its dul constituted authorities. !he mention made in said letter of the situation in Central 7u%on, the u-balahaps, *ulio Guillen and the banditr in 7ete, which are instances of flagrant and armed attac-s against the law an d the dul constituted authorities cannot but be interpreted b the reading public as an indirect
Pa&lo, Padilla, 'ontema#or and (e#es, JJ., concur. Ju!o, J., concurs in the result.
Se%&r&'e O%()(o)*
UASON, J., dissenting
Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, entitled )'nciting to 8edition), provides !he penalt of prision correccional in its ma/imum period and a fine not e/ceeding 2,FFF pesos shall be imposed upon an person without ta-ing an direct part the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of an of the acts which constitute sedition, b means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or u pon an person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the ?nited 8tates or the G overnment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, or an of the dul constituted authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct an lawful officer in e/ecuting the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the communit, the safet and order of the Government, or who shall -nowingl conceal such evil practices. 'n the case of ?.8. vs. 5orr, 2 Phil., >>2, this Court traced the origin and histor of the predecessor of Article 142 and e/pounded its meaning. $r. *ustice 7add, who wrote the decision, said 8everal allied offenses or modes of committing the same offense are defined in that section, vi) 1 !he uttering of seditious words or speeches 2 the writing, publishing, or circulating of scurrilous libels against the G overnment of the ?nited 8tates or the 'nsular Government of the Philippines 'slands > the writing, publishing or circulating of libels which tend to disturb or obstruct an lawful officer in e/ecuting his office 4 or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes ; or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots B or which tend to stir up the peop le against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the communit, the safet and order of the Government -nowingl concealing such evil pr actices.
Referring to case 2 E scurrilous libels against the Government of the ?nited 8tates or the 'nsular Government of the Philippines 'slands which the Court said ma stand on a somewhat different footing from the rest0the Court went on to sa 'n the determination of the 9uestion we have encountered great difficult, be reason of the almost entire lac- of American precedents which might serve as a guide in the construction of the law. !here are, indeed, numerous #nglish decisions, most of them of the )Government, the constitution, or the law generall,) attac-s upon the ouses of Parliament, the Cabinet, the #stablished Church, and other governmental organisms, but these decisions are not now accessible to us, and, if the were, the were made under such different conditions from which prevail at the present da, and are founded upon the theories of government so foreign to those which have inspired the legislation of which the enactment in 9uestion forms a part, that the would probabl afford but little light in the present in9uir. 'n #ngland, in the latter part of the eighteenth centur, an )written ensure upon public men for their conduct as such), as well as an written censure )upon the laws or upon the institutions of the countr,) would probabl have been regarded as a libel upon the Government. 2 8tephen, istor of the Criminal 7aw of #ngland, >4@. !his has ceased to be the law in #ngland, and it is doubtful whether it was ever the common law of an American 8tate. )'t is true that there are ancient dicta to the effect that an publication tending to 3posses the people with an ill opinion of the Government3 is a seditious libel per olt, C.*., in R. vs. !uchin, 1F4 8t. !r., ;>2, and #lenborough, C.*., in R. vs. Cobbet, 1@F4, 2+ ow. 8t. !r., 4+, but no one would accept that doctrine now. ?nless the words used directl tend to foment riot or rebellion or otherwise to disturb the peace and tran9uilit of the Dingdom, the utmost lattitude is allowed in the discussion of all public affairs.) 11 #nc. of the 7aws of #ngland 4;F. *udge Coole sas Const. 7im., +F1 )!he #nglish common law rule which made labels on the constitution or the government indictable, as it was administered b the courts, seems to us unsuited to the condition and circumstances of the people o f America, and therefore never to have been adopted to the 8tates.) After citing the Act of Congress of *ul 14, 1+@, commonl and historicall -nown as the )8edition Act,) and after nothing that )the term 3government3 would appear to be used here in the abstract sense of the e/isting political sstem, as distinguished from the concrete organisms of the Government E the ouse of Congress and the #/ecutive E which are also speciall mentioned,) the Court reached the opinion that )this is the abstract sense in which the term is used in the enactment under consideration.) !he Court pointed out that, )while libels upon forms government, unconnected with defamation of individuals, must in the nature of things be of uncommon concurrence, the offenses is b no means imaginar one,) and cited a case Republic vs. 5ennie, 4 eates Pa.H, 2B in which the defendant was indicted for bringing into contempt and hatred the independence of the ?nited 8tates, the constitution of this Commonwealth and of the ?nited 8tates for e/citing popular discontent and dissatisfaction against the scheme of polit# instituted for condemning the principles of the Revolution, and revailing the characters of the patriots and statesmen for endangering, subverting, and totall destroing the repu&lican constitutions and free !overnments of the said ?nited 8tates and the Commonwealth of Pennslvania. 'n consonance with the principles laid down, the Court held that the article published b 5orr, in which he virulentl attac-ed the polic of the Civil Commission in appointing & ilipinos to office, did
not come within the purview of the law, although it )ma have had the effect of e/citing among certain classes dissatisfaction with the Commission and its measures.) 't found that there was nothing in the article which could )be regarded as having a tendenc to produce anthing li-e what mat be called disaffection, or, other words, a state of feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loal to the Government and obedient to the laws.) !he message which the accused herein caused to be published with his picture contained no libel or criticism against the instituted sstem of government as distinct from the administration. "n the contrar, the gist of the message was that the author was desperate and was g oing to -ill himself because man men in the government were following the practices of absolute and despotic rulers in other parts of the world. e wanted President !ruman and $r. Churchill, leading e/ponents of such democratic institutions as are consecrated in the Philippine Constitution, to be informed that President Ro/as and others in his administration were unfaithful to the tenets of constitutional government. e pointed to the turbulent situation in Central 7u%on, the rampant banditr in 7e te, the attempted assassination of President Ro/as b Guillen, etc., not as e/amples to be emulated to be emulated but as the direct outcome of what he claimed widespread graft and corruption in the Government. e pretended to have decided to ta-e his life because he was impotent to remed or suppress this deplorable state of affairs, and he ashamed of the wa the Government was being conducted. e li-ened some men in the Government, whom he did not specif, to itler and $ussolini, not that he idoli%ed those n otorious characters but because, he felt, evil forces that undermined the ideas and ideals of the Constitution were at wor- in our republic. 'n short, far from advocation the overthrow or change of the present scheme of polit, the article evinced intense feeling of devotion to the welfare of the countr and its institutions. President Ro/as was the onl official named in the article. (ut the defendant did not counsel violence in his reference to the President and the unnamed officials. 'n his statement to the effect that he was going to -ill himself because he could not -ill President Ro/as and the men who surrounded the #/ecutive, it is not a necessar deduction that he wished others to do it. 7et it be remembered that the message was addressed to the writer3s )wife) and )children) who, it turned out, were imaginar. At best, the meaning of the sentence is doubtful and the norm is that, where the defendant3s intention is ambiguous he should be given the benefit of the doubt. !he courts ma not sub> C.*., 1B4, citing ?.8. vs. Apurado et al., Phil., 422. 't is a/iomatic that the Constitution is the paramount law and that legislation has to be ad
Congress has a right to prevent.) 'n the ver law punishing inciting to sedition there is the re9uirement that the words alleged to be seditious or libelous lead or tend to the consummation of the evils sought to be prevented. #ven in the ordinar offenses of threat and defamation, words are not ta-en at face value, but their import or gravit is gauged b the circumstances surrounding each particular case. !he term )lead) and )tend) are used in Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code in their ordinar signification. !hus understood, lead as a verb means )to draw or direct b influence) or )to prevail on,) and tend means )to conduce to an end.) 6ebster3s 'nternational 5ictionar. *udge b these tests, and granting for the present purposes that the defendant did intend to incite others to sedition, the article was harmless as far as the safet of the Government and its officers was concerned, and should have been ignored, as man others more serious than this one have been. !he message, li-e an evil imagining from which no harm proceeds e/cept to the individual himself, was not conducive to the attainment of the prisoner3s aims. 'f words are )the -es of persuasion) and )the triggers of action,) the article under consideration was far from possessing either of these 9ualities, ta-ing into consideration the personalit do the man who wrote it and what he )did.) that the while thing was comical if it were not )tragic.) !he general reaction, it is fairl safe to sa, was one of regret for a man of eccentric and unbalanced mind or ridicule and curiosit for a groste9ue stunt. !he witnesses for the Government themselves, some of whom were constabular officers stationed at !agbilaran, stated that upon reading the article and seeing the author3s picture the
among countries used to freedom libels onl begin to bring the state into contempt when the are prosecuted b the state as contemptuos. !he sedition la ws, for instance, were among the Chief causes of the overthrow of the administration of *ohn Adams and their repeal one of the chief causes of the popularit of that of *efferson. 'f, however, seditious libels are to be prosecuted, it is well to -eep in mind the noble words of princes from whose edicts the #nglish common law, imbued as it is in so man other respects with the spirit of freedom, has much, in reference to the law of libel, to learn )'mppp. !heodosius, Arcarius et onorius, A.A.A. Rufino P.P. 8i 9uis modetiae nescius et pudoris ignarus improbo petulanti9ue maledicto nomina nostra crediderit lacessenda, ac temulentia trubulentus obtrectator temporum nostrorum fuerit, eum poenae nolumus subiugari ne9ue durum ali 9uid nec asperum sustinere, 9uoniam, si e/ levitate processerit, contemnedum est, si e/ insania, miseratione dignissium, si ab in
"oo')o'e*
1 )8currilous) means low, vulgar, mean, foul ?.8. vs. 8trong, 2B> &ed., @+ ?.8. vs. Ault, 2B> &ed., @FF. 2 ?.8. vs. 5orr, 2 Phil., >+2. > 7ibert of the Press 2nd #d. p. >1. 4 People vs. :abong, ; Phil., 4;;. ; ?.8. vs. Apurado, Phil., 422. B (ut we will not rest conviction on this, aware as we are that the prohibition could be pushed to the point where it will silence all criticism against public officials, and thereb infringe the constitutional freedom. !oo much danger that men will be prosecuted, simpl because the critici%e the powers that be. !erminiello vs. Chicago >> ?.8. Rep. p. 1. @ Paterson, 7ibert of the Press, 8peech and Public 6orship, p. @1 note ale and (enson 7aw of the Press, p. >;+. + People vs. $ost, B4 :.#. 1;, ;@ 7.R.A. ;F+. !he 9uestion whe ther the words had the effect of inciting or counseling disturbance of the peace is often a 9uestion of degree, which in the ?.8. is largel for the
