Ppl V Perez Digest

FREEDOM FROM SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT: PEOPLE v PEREZ, 45 PHIL 599 Isaac Perez, municipal secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon, and Fortunato Lodovice, citizen of that municipality, became engaged in a discussion regarding the administration of Governor-General Wood. Thereafter, Perez repeatedly shouted that as Filipinos, they should use a bolo to cut off Wood’s head for killing their independence. “The Filipinos, like myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed our independence.” The CFI of Sorsogon convicted Perez for violation of Art 256 of the RPC for contempt of ministers of the crown or other persons in authority. Hence this appeal. Accdg to the witnesses for the Gov’t, they understood that what Perez did was to invited Filipinos to cut off Wood’s head using their bolos and throw it into the sea. In his defense, Perez testified that the discussion was held in a peaceful manner and that what he wished to say was to remove and substitute the Governor- General by another person. ISSUE: WON accused violated Art 256 of RPC or Sec 8 of Act 292? RULING: the court agrees w/ the trial judge that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made use of insulting words. The court also cited 2 cases (US v Helbig and Ppl v Perfecto) wherein they take it as a settled doctrine that until otherwise decided by higher authority, so much of Art 256 of the RPC as does not relate to ministers of the crown or to writings under the Libel Law, exists and must be enforced. In accordance with this, the court stated that herein accused violated the Treason and Sedition Law and not Art 256 of the RPC. The court thinks that the words of the accused did not raised disturbance in the community. The provisions in Act 292 must not be interpreted so as to abridge the freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Gov’t for redress of grievances. Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect be seditious w/c in this case the constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of assembly and petition must yield to punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted authority, the supremacy of the constitution and the laws, and the existence of the State. The Governor-General is an executive official appointed by the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, and holds his office at the pleasure of the President. The Organic Act vests supreme executive power in the Governor-General to be exercised in accordance with the law. The Governor-General is the representative of executive civil authority in the Philippines and of the sovereign power. A seditious attack on the Governor-General is an attack on the rights of the Filipino people and on American sovereignty. In the words of the law, Perez has uttered seditious words. He has made a statement and done an act which tended to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes. He has made a statement and done an act which suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies. He has made a statement and done an act which tended to stir up the people against the lawful authorities. He has made a statement and done an act which tended to disturb the peace of the community and the safety or order of the Government. All of these various tendencies can be ascribed to the action of Perez and may be characterized as penalized by section 8 of Act No. 292 as amended. The designation of the crime by the fiscal is not conclusive. The crime of which the defendant stands charged is that described by the facts stated in the information. In accordance with our settled rule, an accused may be found guilty and convicted of a graver offense than that designated in the information, if such graver offense is included or described in the body of the information, and is afterwards justified by the proof presented during the trial. The result is to agree with the trial Judge in his findings of the fact, and on these facts to convict the accused of a violation of section 8 of Act No. 292 as amended. Thus, herein accused shall suffer 2mos and 1day of imprisonment and pay the costs.

Article 256 of the PC Any person who, by word, deed,or writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in authority, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or by reason of such performance, provided that the offensive minister or person, or the offensive writing be not addressed to him, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.

Section 8 of Act 292 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.