crim 2 cases tahil to johnson inciting to sedition

7/25/2019 Crim 2 Cases Tahil to Johnson Inciting to Sedition

1/18

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DATUTAHIL and Datu TARSON,Defendants-Appellants.

Jose A. Uy for appellants.

Vicente Sotto for appellant Datu Tahil.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

AVANCEA, C.J.:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The appellants, Datu Tahil and Datu Tarson, were convicted in the Court of First

Instance of Sulu of the crime of rebellion, Datu Tahil being sentenced to ten years'

imprisonment and to pay a fine of !",""", and Datu Tarso to five years'

imprisonment and to pay a fine of #,""", with sudsidiary imprisonment in case of

insolvency in regard to Datu Tarson. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual lawlibrary

$aving encountered certain difficulties in the collection of the land and the personal

cedula ta%es among the resident of &atiul, due to their refusal to mae this payment,

the provincial governor of Sulu, Carl (oore, turned the matter over to )ieutenant

*ngeles of the Constabulary for the purpose of employing such means as he might

consider convenient to overcome these difficulties. Datu Tahil, then the third member

of the provincial board of Sulu, being amongst those who refused to mae this

payment, )ieutenant *ngeles tried and succeeded in having a conference with him, in

which Datu Tahil suggested that he return the following day because he would call

meeting of his people at his house in )iang in order to discuss the matter with them.

)ieutenant *ngeles went to Datu Tahil's house the day following this meeting and

found about +" persons present. *fter )ieutenant *ngeles has e%plained to all the

importance of the overnment's collecting the land ta%, Datu Tahil too several of

those present into a room for a secret conference, after which he informed )ieutenant

*ngeles that he, personally, had no ob-ection to paying the ta%, but the others ased

time to do so. )ieutenant *ngeles said that he would inform overnor (oore of it and

left.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual lawlibrary

hen )ieutenant *ngeles returned to &atiul, (oro &asingan, who had attended the

conference as a secret agent of the overnment informed him that the e%tensionre/uested for the payment of the land ta% was nothing more than a prete%t to gain time

in order to construct a fort. Indeed, a few days after, the construction of a fort was

commenced on a hill at a strategical location. *fter the construction of the fort Datu

Tahil gathered his people therein, including Datu Tarson who was one of those who

refused to pay the ta% and who attended the conference. Then the propaganda started


2/18

to e%tend the movement, and they tried to attract those who were in the overnment

service. The principal purpose of the movements was to obtain the abolition of the

land ta% and besides, other pretentions in connection with the attendance of children at

school, the privilege of carrying arms and the removal of certain provincial officials,

amongst whom, overnor (oore, with the threat that if their re/uest were notgranted, they would oppose the overnment by forcible means. Datu Tahil made them

all, including Datu Tarson, tae an oath on the 0oran to this effect. From then on they

too turns in guarding the fort and its surrondings under the orders of Datu Tahil, who

always carried a rifle and a revolver. )ieutenant *ngeles upon being informed of this

state of affairs reported it to overnor (oore, and the latter, in turn, endorsed the

matter to the provincial fiscal. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

*bout the middle of 1anuary, !23+, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint against Datu

Tahil and his followers charging them with sedition, and the proper warrant of arrest

was issued on the !#th. overnor (oore, however, did not wish to proceed on thiswarrant of arrest and tried to persuade Datu Tahil and his followers to desist from their

intention, using the influence of other prominent (oros to this end. overnor (oore

even tried to have a conference with Datu Tahil for the same purpose, but was

unsuccessful because he was informed that they intended to attac him. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual lawlibrary

4n 1anuary 5"th, when overnor (oore had given up all hopes of obtaining any

results from his efforts, he delivered the warrant of arrest to Commander reen of the

Constabulary of its compliance. The following day Commander reen with a group of

soldiers, stationed themselves about #" meters in front of the fort where he found ared flag flying and demanded the surrender of Datu Tahil. $e did not receive any

reply to his intimation, and, in turn, a group of armed (oros appeared at the left flan

of the Constabulary soldiers in the act of attacing them, but were repelled. It was

again intimated that Datu Tahil surrender, but again no answer was received, and then

a larger group of (oros appeared in an aggressive attitude, being liewise repelled.

For the purpose of frightening the (oros, the Constabulary soldiers fired the stoe

mortar, which caused the defenders of the fort to flee, leaving the overnment forces

in possession thereof, where they found only the bodies of those who had been illed

in this affray.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Some days after this Datu Tahil surrendered to the authorities and, while in -ail, had a

conference with overnor (oore in which he stated that Commander (alone of the

Contabulary was to blame for everything, as he had induced them to rebel against the

overnment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual lawlibrary


3/18

The appellants allege in their defense that the construction of the fort and the meetings

which too place therein were only for the purpose of discussing their grievances

against the overnment in order to present and submit their claims through peaceful

means. This allegation, however, is not supported by the evidence. Datu Tahil,

himself, admits that he in fact did swear his followers on the 0oran, although he saysthat the very purpose of this was in order that they would not oppose the overnment

but would present their grievances through peaceful means. 6ut, if this were the

purpose of the oath, the necessity of taing it is not understood. The said Datu Tahil

admits in an affidavit having committed all of these acts against the law, constructing

the fort in order to oppose the overnment, because Commander (alone had

encouraged him to do so, promising to furnish arms and ammunition, and visiting the

fort from time to time while it was in the course of construction. e do not believe

that Datu Tahil, as he stated during the trial, signed this affidavit without having been

informed of its contents. Furthermore, this supposed inducement of Commander

(alone, aside from being no e%cuse for the commission of the crime, was

emphatically denied by Datu Tahil. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual lawlibrary

*t any rate, for the purpose of the present case, suffice it to say that upon its being

intimated to Datu Tahil that he surrender with the ob-ect of complying with a -udicial

warrant of arrest against him and his followers, he resisted this order by means of

force, thus preventing the officer charged with this duty from performing it. This

already constitutes a crime. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In regard to Datu Tarson, it appears that he was one of those who too an oath on the0oran to oppose the overnment by force7 that he too part in all the activities of the

movement, assisting in the construction of the fort7 that in the day preceding the

incident he was in the fort7 and while he left in the afternoon, he returned early the

following morning and was found in the fort when the overnment forces

appeared.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The facts proven, however, constitute the crime of sedition, defined in section # of *ct

8o. 323, and not of rebellion according to section 5 of the same law, the acts

committed being limited to preventing the overnment officials, throught force, from

complying with their duties in connection with the -udicial order, the enforcement of

which was entrusted to them. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In our opinion, the crime committed is that of sedition, and the fine imposed upon

Datu Tahil is therefore reduced to #,""" and that imposed upon Datu Tarson to


4/18

3,#"", the -udgment appealed from being affirmed in all other respects, with the

costs against the appellants. So ordered. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary


5/18

People vs Umal

.9. 8o. ):#;"5

8ovember 32, !2#mali, et. al were found guilty was said to have been

committed during the raid staged in the town of Tiaong, ?ue@on, between ;="" and 2="" in the evening of

8ovember !


6/18

PEOPLE vs CA!RERA

&laintiffG*ppellee= The &eople of the &hilippine Islands,

DefendantG*ppellant= raciano ). Cabrera et al. Date 1anuary !, 3"!5

D4CT9I8H

Sedition is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the state.

ES$49T AH9SI48

6ecause of certain incidents, the &hilippine constabulary and the &olice of (anila had a rough

relationship with each other. The constabulary force had grudges against the &olice force of (anila. 4ne

night, the constabulary force went to attac the &olice force, illing and wounding several policemen and

civilians.

F*CTS

The &hilippine Constabulary has grudges against the police of (anila and they want to inflict revenge for

the following reasons= E! 4n December !5, !23", a (anila police arrested a woman who is a member ofthe household of a constabulary soldier and was allegedly abused by the said policeman. E3 &rivate

(acasinag of the Constabulary was shot by a (anila police and was mortally wounded. * day after the

incident, a rumor spread among the Constabulary that the &olice who shot (acasinag was bac to his

original duties while (acasinag was declared dead. There were also rumors that the said shooting was

ordered. 4n the night of December !# some members of the Constabulary escaped their barracs through

a window Ethe saw out the window bars. They had rifles and ammunitions and were organi@ed in groups

under the command of their sergeants and corporals. They attaced some (anila policemen in these

specific instances= E! 4n Calle 9eal, Intramuros, a group of the Constabulary shot and illed an

*merican &oliceman and his friend. E3 The Constabulary indiscriminately shot at a passer: by, causing a

death and wounding most of the passengers. E5 hile riding a motorcycle driven by policeman Saplala,

Captain illiam H. ichman Easst. chief of police in (anila was shot and illed together with SaplalaISS>HSG$H)D

E! Is there connivanceGconspiracy between the accused:

HS

E3 *re the accused properly convicted of a violation of the Treason and Sedition )aw:

HS

9*TI4

E! Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which

vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their

acts the same ob-ect, one performing one part and another another part of the same, so as to complete it,

with a view to the attainment of the same ob-ect, one will be -ustified in the conclusion that they were

engaged in a conspiracy to the effect that ob-ect. It is incontestable that all of the defendants were imbued

with the same purpose, which was to avenge themselves on the police force of (anila. * common

feeling of resentment animated all. E3 Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising of commotions or

disturbances in the State. The &hilippine law on the sub-ect maes all persons guilty of sedition who rise

publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force of outside of legal methods any one of five ob-ects,


7/18

including that of inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any official or agent

of the Insular government or of a provincial or municipal government. The counsel contested that it is

necessary that the offender should be a private citi@en and the offended party a public functioinary, and

what really happened was a fight between two armed bodies of the &hilippine overnment. The court

held that this contention is without foundation.

The Treason and Sedition )aw maes no distinction between the persons to which it applies. hat isimportant is that there is a public rising to incite or inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or

property of any official or agent of the Insular government or of a provincial or municipal government.

DHCISI48

1udgment affirmed .


8/18

US vs Tolentino

Facts:

14 May 1903, City of Manila: the theatrical work Kahapon, Ngayon at Bkas written in the !agalog langage "y

#relio !olentino $appellant% was presente& in !eatro 'i"erta&

(e was then charge& an& con)icte& with the cri*e of +ttering se&itios wor&s an& writings, p"lishing an&

circlating scrrilos li"els against the o)t of the -. an& the /nslar o)t of the hilippine /slan&s2!olentinoca*e to appeal

/sses: hether in writing, p"lishing an& ttering the &ra*a, the accse& was in fact gilty of a )iolation of

section 5 of #ct No6 797of the hilippine Co**ission pon which the infor*ation was "ase&

8ling: es

Ratio:

!heatrical work which was allege& to "e se&itios6

*o&es of co**itting the offense:

a6 ttering se&itios wor&s or speeches"6 riting, p"lishing, or circlating of scrrilos li"els against the go)t6c6 writing, p"lishing or circlating of scrrilos li"els which ten& to &istr" or o"strct any lawfl officer in

e;ecting his office

&6 or which ten& to instigate others to ca"al or *eet together for nlawfl prposese6 which sggest or incite re"ellios conspiraciesf6 which ten& to stir p people against lawfl athorities or to &istr" the peace of the co**nity, safety

an& or&er of the go)tg6 knowingly concealing sch e)il practices


9/18

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

SUSANO PEREZ (alias KID PEREZ),defendant-appellant.

Crispin Oben and Isidro Santiago for appellant.

Assistance Solicitor General Manuel P. Barcelona and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali for appellee.

TUASON, J.:

Susano Perez aliasKid Perez alias Kid Perez was convicted of treason by the 5th Division of the

People's Court sittin in Cebu City and sentenced to death by electrocution.

Seven counts were alleed in the infor!ation but the prosecution offered evidence only on counts ",

#, $, 5 and %, all of which, accordin to the court, were substantiated. &n a unani!ous decision, the

trial court found as follows

()s reards count *o. " +

Count *o. " allees that the accused, toether with the other ilipinos, recruited,

apprehended and co!!andeered nu!erous irls and wo!en aainst their will for the

purpose of usin the!, as in fact they were used, to satisfy the i!!oral purpose and seual

desire of Colonel ini, and a!on such unfortunate victi!s, were elina /aput, 0riberta

1a!o alias ia!i 1a!o, 0duarda Daoho, 0uti2uia /a!ay, eliciana 3onalos and laviana

3onalos.

&t would be unnecessary to recite here the testi!onies of all the victi!s of the accused4 it

sufficient to reproduce here succinctly the testi!ony of 0riberta 1a!o. She testified that on

une "5, "6$#, the accused ca!e to her house to et her and told her that she was wanted

in the house of her aunt, but instead, she was brouht to the house of the Puppet 7overnor

)apito 8ontanosas4 that she escaped and returned to 3aclayon her ho!etown4 that theaccused ca!e aain and told her that Colonel ini wanted her to be his &nfor!ation Cler94

that she did not accept the :ob4 that a wee9 later the accused ca!e to 3aclayon to et her,

and succeeded in ta9in so!e other irls Puppet 7overnor )apito 8ontanosas4 that

7overnor 8ontanosas told her that Colonel ini wanted her to be his wife4 that when she

was brouht to Colonel ini the latter had nothin on but a (7( strin4 that he, Colonel ini

threatened her with a sword tied her to a bed and with force succeeded in havin carnal

9nowlede with her4 that on the followin niht, aain she was brouht to Colonel ini and

aain she was raped4 that finally she was able to escape and stayed in hidin for three

wee9s and only ca!e out fro! the hidin when Colonel ini left ;abilaran.

()s reards count *o. # +

Count *o. # of the infor!ation substantially allees ;hat accused in co!pany with so!e

apanese and ilipinos too9 0riberta 1a!o and her sister Cleopatra 1a!o fro! their ho!e

in 3aclayon to attend a ban2uet and a dance oranized in honor of Colonel ini by the

Puppet 7overnor, )apito 8ontanosas in order that said apanese Colonel !iht select

those first who would later be ta9en to satisfy his carnal appetite and that by !eans of threat,

force and inti!idation, the above !entioned two sister were brouht to the head2uarters of

the apanese Co!!ander at the ission 8ospital in ;abilaran where 0riberta 1a!o was


10/18

forced to lived a life of sha!e. )ll these facts alleed in count *o. # were testified to by said

witnesses 0riberta 1a!o her !other ercedes de 1a!o. &t is not necessary here to recite

once !ore their testi!ony in support of the alleations in court *o. #4 this Court is fully

convinced that the alleation in said count *o. # were fully substantiated by the evidence

adduced.

()s reards count *o. $ +

Count *o. $ substantially allees that on uly "%, "6$#, the two irls na!ed 0duardo S.

Daoho and 0uti2uia /a!ay, were ta9en fro! their ho!es in Corella, 3ohol, by the accused

and his co!panion na!ed


11/18

secluded place in ;abilaran, 3ohol, and in the dar9ness, by !ean of threat and violence

had carnal 9nowlede with her aainst her will.

eliciana 3onalos testifyin in this count, declared that the accused ca!e to et her on the

pretet that she was to be used as witness in a case affectin certain China!an before

Colonel ini4 that she and her youner sister laviana were brouht in a car driven by the

accused4 they were brouht to the house of Colonel ini4 that sister laviana was conducted

into a roo! and after re!ainin in the sa!e for about an hour, she ca!e out with her hair

and her dress in disorder4 that laviana told her i!!ediately that she was raped aainst her

will by Colonel ini4 that she >eliciana?, after leavin the residence of said ap officer, was

ta9en by Perez to an uninhabited house and there by threat and inti!idation, the accused

succeeded in rapin her4 that when she returned to her >the witness?, laviana was cryin4

that the followin day while conductin the two irls bac9 to their ho!etown, she >eliciana?

was also raped by the accused in an uninhabited house, aainst her will.

!other of eliciana and laviana 3onalos? testified as followin ;hat on

une "5, "6$#, the accused ca!e and told her that the apanese needed her dauhters to

be witnesses4 that accordinly, he dauhters, under that understandin, started for

;abilaran4 that later, she went to ;abilaran to loo9 for her dauhters and she found the! in

the office of the Puppet 7overnor4 that on seein her, both dauhters wept and told her that

they were turned over to the apanese and raped the!4 that her dauhter laviana told her

>the witness? that after the apanese had raped her the accused also raped her >laviana? in

an uninhabited house4 that the accused did not per!it her two dauhter to return ho!e on

the pretet that the Puppet 7overnor was then absent and in the !eanwhile they stayed in

the house of the accused Perez4 that when her dauhter returned to her house ulti!ately,

they related to her >!other? what happened4 that both dauhters told her they would have

preferred death rather than to have one to ;abilaran4 that eliciana told her >the !other?

that the accused had raped her.

;he infor!ation ive by eliciana to her !other is ad!itted in evidence as a part of the resgestaereardless of the ti!e that had elapsed between the occurrence and the ti!e of the

infor!ation. &n the !anner these two witnesses testified in court, there could be no doubt

that they were tellin the absolute truth. &t is hard to conceived that these irls would assu!e

and ad!it the ino!iny they have one throuh if they were not true. ;he Court is fully

convinced that all the alleations contained in Court *o. 5 have been proven by the

testi!onies of these two witnesses beyond reasonable doubt.

()s reards count *o. % +

Count *o. %, allees ;hat the accused, toether with his ilipino co!panion apprehended

*atividad 3arcinas, *icanora 1ala!eda and ;eoti!a 3arcinas, nurses of the provincial

hospital, for not havin attended a dance and reception oranized by the Puppet 7overnor inhonor of Colonel ini and other apanese hih ran9in officers, which was held in ;abilaran

!ar9et on une #5, "6$#4 that upon bein brouht the Puppet 7overnor, they were severely

repri!anded by the latter4 that on uly A, "6$#, aainst said nurses were forced to attend

another ban2uet and dance in order that the ap officers ini and ;a9ibayas !iht !a9e a

selection which irls would suit best their fancy4 that the real purpose behind those forcible

invitations was to lure the! to the residence of said apanese =fficer ini for i!!oral

purposes.


12/18

*atividad 3arcinas, a /ieutenant of the P.)., testified at lenth. She declared ;hat on une

#6, "6$#, she and co!panion nurses, saw the accused co!in to the hospital with a

revolver and too9 the! on a car to the office of the Puppet 7overnor where they were

severely repri!anded by the latter for not attendin the dance held on une and receptions

was to select fro! a!on the! the best irl that would suit the fancy of Colonel ini for

i!!oral purposes that she and her co!panions were always afraid of the accused Perez

whenever he ca!e to said hospital4 that on one occasion, one of the nurses on perceivinthe approach of the accused, ran up into her roo!, laid down on bed and si!ulated to be

sic94 that said accused, not satisfied, went up into the roo! of that particular nurse and

pulled out the blan9et which covered her and tellin her that it was only her pretet that she

was sic9.

;he testi!ony of /t. *atividad 3arcinas is fully corroborated by that of *icanora 1ala!eda.

Said testi!ony need not be reproduced here.

&n a carefully written brief for the appellant these findins are not 2uestioned, but it is contended that

the deeds co!!itted by the accused do not constitute treason. ;he Solicitor 7eneral sub!its the

opposite view, and arues that (to !aintain and preserve the !orale of the soldiers has always

been, and will always be, a funda!ental concern of ar!y authorities, for the efficiency of rests not

only on its physical attributes but also, !ainly, on the !orale of its soldiers( >citin the annual report

of the Chief of Staff, Bnited State )r!y, for the fiscal year endin une , "6?.

&f furnishin wo!en for i!!oral purposes to the ene!ies was treason because wo!en's co!pany

9ept up their !orale, so fraternizin with the!, entertainin the! at parties, sellin the! food and

drin9s, and 9indred acts, would be treason. or any act of hospitality without doubt produces the

sa!e eneral result. yet by co!!on aree!ent those and si!ilar !anifestation of sy!pathy and

attach!ent are not the 9ind of disloyalty that are punished as treason.

&n a broad sense, the law of treason does not prescribe all 9inds of social, business and political

intercourse between the bellierent occupants of the invaded country and its inhabitants. &n thenature of thins, the occupation of a country by the ene!y is bound to create relations of all sorts

between the invaders and the natives. Ehat aid and co!fort constitute treason !ust depend upon

their nature deree and purpose. ;o draw a line between treasonable and untreasonable assistance

is not always easy. ;he scope of adherence to the ene!y is co!prehensive, its re2uire!ent

indeter!inate as was said Cra!er vs.Bnited States. A6 /aw. ed., "$$".

)s eneral rule, to be treasonous the etent of the aid and co!fort iven to the ene!ies !ust be to

render assistance to the! as ene!ies and not !erely as individuals and in addition, be directly in

furtherance of the ene!ies' hostile desins. ;o !a9e a si!ple distinction ;o lend or ive !oney to

an ene!y as a friend or out of charity to the beneficiary so that he !ay buy personal necessities is

to assist hi! as individual and is not technically traitorous. =n the other hand, to lend or ive hi!

!oney to enable hi! to buy ar!s or a!!unition to use in wain war aainst the iver's countryenhance his strenth and by sa!e count in:ures the interest of the overn!ent of the iver. ;hat is

treason. >See Bnited States vs.ric9e, #56 ., %F4 % C.., A"%, A"F.?

)pplyin these principles to the case at bar, appellant's first assin!ent of error is correct. 8is

(co!!andeerin( of wo!en to satisfy the lust of apanese officers or !en or to enliven the

entertain!ent held in their honor was not treason even thouh the wo!en and the entertain!ent

helped to !a9e life !ore pleasant for the ene!ies and boost their spirit4 he was not uilty any !ore


13/18

than the wo!en the!selves would have been if they voluntarily and willinly had surrendered their

bodies or oranized the entertain!ent. Seual and social relations with the apanese did not directly

and !aterially tend to i!prove their war efforts or to wea9en the power of the Bnited State. ;he acts

herein chared were not, by fair i!plication, calculated to strenthen the apanese 0!pire or its

ar!y or to cripple the defense and resistance of the other side. Ehatever favorable effect the

defendant's collaboration with the apanese !iht have in their prosecution of the war was trivial,

i!perceptible, and unintentional. &ntent of disloyalty is a vital inredient in the cri!e of treason,which, in the absence of ad!ission, !ay be athered fro! the nature and circu!stances of each

particular case.

3ut the accused !ay be punished for the rape of 0riberta 1a!o, 0duarda Daoho, 0uti2uia /a!ay

and laviana 3onalos as principal by direct participation. Eithout his cooperation in the !anner

above stated, these rapes could not have been co!!itted.

Conviction of the accused of rapes instead of treason finds epress sanction in section # of

Co!!onwealth )ct *o. %A#, which says

Provided furter, ;hat where, in its opinion, the evidence is not sufficient to support theoffense >treason? chared, the People's Court !ay, nevertheless, convict and sentence the

accused for any cri!e included in the acts alleed in the infor!ation and established by the

evidence.

)ll the above !entioned rapes are alleed in the infor!ation and substantiated by the evidence.

Counsel assails the constitutionality of this of his provision as violative of section ", pararaph "F,

)rticle &&& of the Constitution, which uarantees to an accused the riht (to be infor!ed of the nature

and cause of the accusation aainst hi!.( ;he contention is not well ta9en. ;he provision in re2uires

that the private cri!es of which an accused of treason !ay be convicted !ust be averred in the

infor!ation and sustained by evidence. &n the liht of this enact!ent, the defendant was warned of

the hazard that he !iht be founded uilty of rapes if he was innocent of treason and thus affordedan opportunity to prepare and !eet the!. ;here is no ele!ent of surprise or ano!aly involved. &n

facts under the eneral law of cri!inal procedure convicted for cri!e different fro! that desinated

in the co!plaint or infor!ation is allowed and practiced, provided only that such cri!e (is included or

described in the body of the infor!ation, and afterwards :ustified by the proof presented durin the

trial.( >Peoplevs.Perez, $5 Phil., 566.?

;he defendant personally assaulted and abused two of the offended irls but these assaults are not

chared aainst hi! and should be ruled out. ;he cri!e of coercion alleed and founded on count

*o. %. need not be noticed in view of the severity of the penalty for the other cri!es which he !ust

suffer.

Ee find the defendant uilty of four separate cri!es of rape and sentence hi! for each of the! to an

indeter!inate penalty of fro! " year ofprision ma!or to "F year and $ !onths of reclusion

temporal, with the accessories of law, to inde!nify each of the offended wo!en in the su! of

P,, and to pay the costs4 it bein understood that the total duration of these penalties shall not

eceed forty years.


14/18

Moran" C.#." $eria" Perfecto" Beng%on" Briones and &e!es" ##."concur.

Paras" #."reserves his vote.

Montema!or" #."concurs in the result.

!hat the wo*en were "roght "y the accse& to the


15/18

=spelas )s eople686 No6 '27990>ece*"er 1, 19?1

Facts:

@n


16/18

UMIL VS. RAMOS

@n 1 Fe"rary 1955, *ilitary agents were &ispatche& to the .t6 #gnes (ospital,8oose)elt #)ene, HeAon City, to )erify a confi&ential infor*ation which wasrecei)e& "y their office, a"ot a Esparrow *anE $N# *e*"er% who ha& "een

a&*itte& to the sai& hospital with a gnshot won&6 !hat the won&e& *an inthe sai& hospital was a*ong the fi)e $?% *ale EsparrowsE who *r&ere& two$7% Capco* *o"ile patrols the &ay "efore, or on 31


17/18

TEXAS VS. JOHNSON

Facts

7reory /ee ohnson burned an )!erican fla outside of the convention center where

the "6A$ 1epublican *ational Convention was bein held in Dallas, ;eas. ohnson

burned the fla to protest the policies of President 1onald 1eaan. 8e was arrested

and chared with violatin a ;eas statute that prevented the desecration of a

venerated ob:ect, includin the )!erican fla, if such action were li9ely to incite aner in

others. ) ;eas court tried and convicted ohnson. 8e appealed, aruin that his

actions were (sy!bolic speech( protected by the irst )!end!ent. ;he Supre!e Court

areed to hear his case.

Issue

Ehether fla burnin constitutes (sy!bolic speech( protected by the irst )!end!ent.

Ruling

Ges.

Reasoning(7-3)

;he !a:ority of the Court, accordin to ustice Eillia! 3rennan, areed with ohnson

and held that fla burnin constitutes a for! of (sy!bolic speech( that is protected by

the irst )!end!ent. ;he !a:ority noted that freedo! of speech protects actions that

society !ay find very offensive, but society's outrae alone is not :ustification for

suppressin free speech.

&n particular, the !a:ority noted that the ;eas law discri!inated upon viewpoint, i.e.,

althouh the law punished actions, such as fla burnin, that !iht arouse aner in

others, it specifically ee!pted fro! prosecution actions that were respectful of

venerated ob:ects, e.., burnin and buryin a worn-out fla. ;he !a:ority said that the

overn!ent could not discri!inate in this !anner based solely upon viewpoint.


18/18

issent

Justice Ste!ens

Eritin for the dissent, ustice Stevens arued that the fla's uni2ue status as a sy!bol

of national unity outweihed (sy!bolic speech( concerns, and thus, the overn!ent

could lawfully prohibit fla burnin.

crim 2 cases tahil to johnson inciting to sedition

Documents