Está en la página 1de 5

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18463 October 4, 1922
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNE SL!N"S, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
GREGORO PERFECTOR, defendant-appellant.
Alfonso E. Mendoza and the appellant in behalf of the latter.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee.

M!LCOLM, J.:
The important uestion is here suarel! presented of "hether article #$% of the
&panish Penal Code, punishin' (An! person "ho, b! . . . "ritin', shall defame,
abuse, or insult an! Minister of the Cro"n or other person in authorit! . . .,( is still in
force.
About Au'ust #), *+#), the &ecretar! of the Philippine &enate, ,ernando M.
-uerrero, discovered that certain documents "hich constituted the records of
testimon! 'iven b! "itnesses in the investi'ation of oil companies, had disappeared
from his office. &hortl! thereafter, the Philippine &enate, havin' been called into
special session b! the -overnor--eneral, the &ecretar! for the &enate informed that
bod! of the loss of the documents and of the steps ta.en b! him to discover the 'uilt!
part!. The da! follo"in' the convenin' of the &enate, &eptember /, *+#), the
ne"spaper La Nacion, edited b! Mr. -re'orio Perfecto, published an article readin'
as follo"s0
1alf a month has elapsed since the discover!, for the first time, of the
scandalous robber! of records "hich "ere .ept and preserved in the iron
safe of the &enate, !et up to this time there is not the sli'htest indication that
the author or authors of the crime "ill ever be discovered.
To find them, it "ould not, perhaps, be necessar! to 'o out of the &ente
itself, and the persons in char'e of the investi'ation of the case "ould not
have to displa! 'reat s.ill in order to succeed in their underta.in', unless
the! should encounter the insuperable obstacle of offical concealment.
2n that case, ever! investi'ation to be made "ould be but a mere comed! and
nothin' more.
After all, the perpetration of the robber!, especiall! under the circumstances
that have surrounded it, does not surprise us at all.
The e3ecution of the crime "as but the natural effect of the environment of
the place in "hich it "as committed.
1o" man! of the present &enators can sa! "ithout remorse in their
conscience and "ith serenit! of mind, that the! do not o"e their victor!
to electoral robber!4 1o" ma!4
The author or authors of the robber! of the records from the said iron
safe of the &enate have, perhaps, but follo"ed the e3ample of certain
&enators "ho secured their election throu'h fraud and robber!.
The Philippine &enate, in its session of &eptember +, *+#), adopted a resolution
authori5in' its committee on elections and privile'es to report as to the action
"hich should be ta.en "ith reference to the article published inLa Nacion. 6n
&eptember *$, *+#), the &enate adopted a resolution authori5in' the President of
the &enate to indorse to the Attorne!--eneral, for his stud! and correspondin'
action, all the papers referrin' to the case of the ne"spaper La Nacion and its
editor, Mr. -re'orio Perfecto. As a result, an information "as filed in the
municipal court of the Cit! of Manila b! an assistant cit! fiscal, in "hich the
editorial in uestion "as set out and in "hich it "as alle'ed that the same
constituted a violation of article #$% of the Penal Code. The defendant -re'orio
Perfecto "as found 'uilt! in the municipal court and a'ain in the Court of ,irst
2nstance of Manila.
7urin' the course of the trial in the Court of ,irst 2nstance, after the prosecution
had rested, the defense moved for the dismissal of the case. 6n the sub8ect of
"hether or not article #$% of the Penal Code, under "hich the information "as
presented, is in force, the trial 8ud'e, the 1onorable -eor'e R. 1arve!, said0
This antiuated provision "as doubtless incorporated into the Penal
Code of &pain for the protection of the Ministers of the Cro"n and other
representatives of the 9in' a'ainst free speech and action b! &panish
sub8ects. A severe punishment "as prescribed because it "as doubtless
considered a much more serious offense to insult the 9in':s
representative than to insult an ordinar! individual. This provision, "ith
almost all the other articles of that Code, "as e3tended to the Philippine
2slands "hen under the dominion of &pain because the 9in':s sub8ect in
the Philippines mi'ht defame, abuse or insult the Ministers of the Cro"n
or other representatives of 1is Ma8est!. ;e no" have no Ministers of
the Cro"n or other persons in authorit! in the Philippines representin'
the 9in' of &pain, and said provision, "ith other articles of the Penal
Code, had apparentl! passed into (innocuous desuetude,( but the
&upreme Corut of the Philippine 2slands has, b! a ma8orit! decision,
held that said article #$% is the la" of the land to-da!. . . .
The 1elbi' case is a precedent "hich, b! the rule of stare decisis, is
bindin' upon this court until other"ise determined b! proper authorit!.
2n the decision rendered b! the same 8ud'e, he concluded "ith the follo"in'
lan'ua'e0
2n the <nited &tates such publications are usuall! not punishable as criminal
offense, and little importance is attached to them, because the! are 'enerall!
the result of political controvers! and are usuall! re'arded as more or less
colored or e3a''erated. Attac.s of this character upon a le'islative bod! are
not punishable, under the =ibel =a". Althou'h such publications are
reprehensible, !et this court feels some aversion to the application of the
provision of la" under "hich this case "as filed. 6ur Penal Code has come
to us from the &panish re'ime. Article #$% of that Code prescribes
punishment for persons "ho use insultin' lan'ua'e about Ministers of the
Cro"n or other (authorit!.( The 9in' of &pain doubtless left the need of
such protection to his ministers and others in authorit! in the Philippines as
"ell as in &pain. 1ence, the article referred to "as made applicable here.
Not"ithstandin' the chan'e of soverei'nt!, our &upreme Court, in a
ma8orit! decision, has held that this provision is still in force, and that one
"ho made an insultin' remar. about the President of the <nited &tates "as
punishable under it. ><.&. vs. 1elbi',supra.? 2f it applicable in that case, it
"ould appear to be applicable in this case. 1ence, said article #$% must be
enforced, "ithout fear or favor, until it shall be repealed or superseded b!
other le'islation, or until the &upreme Court shall other"ise determine.
2n vie" of the fore'oin' considerations, the court finds the defendant 'uilt!
as char'ed in the information and under article #$% of their Penal Code
sentences him to suffer t"o months and one da! of arresto mayor and the
accessor! penalties prescribed b! la", and to pa! the costs of both instances.
The fifteen errors assi'ned b! the defendant and appellant, reenforced b! an
e3tensive brief, and elouent oral ar'ument made in his o"n behalf and b! his
learned counsel, all reduce themselves to the pertinent and decisive uestion "hich
"as announced in the be'innin' of this decision.
2t "ill be noted in the first place that the trial 8ud'e considered himself bound to
follo" the rule announced in the case of <nited &tates vs. 1elbi' >R. -. No.
*@/)$, * not published?. 2n that case, the accused "as char'ed "ith havin' said, (To
hell "ith the President and his proclamations, or "ords to that effect,( in violation of
article #$% of the Penal Code. 1e "as found 'uilt! in a 8ud'ment rendered b! the
Court of ,irst 2nstance of Manila and a'ain on appeal to the &upreme Court, "ith the
"riter of the instant decision dissentin' on t"o principal 'rounds0 >*? That the
accused "as deprived of the constitutional ri'ht of cross-e3amination, and >#? that
article #$% of the &panish Penal Code is no lon'er in force. &ubseuentl!, on a
motion of reconsideration, the court, bein' of the opinion that the Court of ,irst
2nstance had committed a pre8udicial error in deprivin' the accused of his ri'ht to
cross-e3amine a principal "itness, set aside the 8ud'ment affirmin' the 8ud'ment
appealed from and ordered the return of the record to the court of ori'in for the
celebration of a ne" trial. ;hether such a trial "as actuall! had, is not .no"n, but at
least, the record in the 1elbi' case has never a'ain been elevated to this court.
There ma! perchance e3ist some doubt as to the authorit! of the decision in the
1elbi' case, in vie" of the circumstances above described. This much, ho"ever,
is certain0 The facts of the 1elbi' case and the case before us, "hich "e ma!
term the Perfecto case, are different, for in the first case there "as an oral
defamation, "hile in the second there is a "ritten defamation. Not onl! this, but
a ne" point "hich, under the facts, could not have been considered in the 1elbi'
case, is, in the Perfecto case, ur'ed upon the court. And, finall!, as is apparent to
all, the appellate court is not restrained, as "as the trial court, b! strict adherence
to a former decision. ;e much prefer to resolve the uestion before us
unhindered b! references to the 1elbi' decision.
This is one of those cases on "hich a variet! of opinions all leadin' to the same
result can be had. A ma8orit! of the court are of the opinion that the Philippine
=ibel =a", Act No. #//, has had the effect of repealin' so much of article #$% of
the Penal Code as relates to "ritten defamation, abuse, or insult, and that under
the information and the facts, the defendant is neither 'uilt! of a violation of
article #$% of the Penal Code, nor of the =ibel =a". The vie" of the Chief
Austice is that the accused should be acuitted for the reason that the facts
alle'ed in the information do not constitute a violation of article *$% of the Penal
Code. Three members of the court believe that article #$% "as abro'ated
completel! b! the chan'e from &panish to American soverei'nt! over the
Philippines and is inconsistent "ith democratic principles of 'overnment.
;ithout pre8udice to the ri'ht of an! member of the court to e3plain his position,
"e "ill discuss the t"o main points 8ust mentioned.
*. Effect of the hilippine Libel La!" Act No. #$$" on article #%& of the
'panish enal (ode. B The =ibel =a", Act No. #//, "as enacted b!
the Philippine Commission shortl! after or'ani5ation of this le'islative
bod!. &ection * defines libel as a (malicious defamation, e3pressed
either in "ritin', printin', or b! si'ns or pictures, or the li.e, or public
theatrical e3hibitions, tendin' to blac.en the memor! of one "ho is
dead or to impeach the honest!, virtue, or reputation, or publish the
alle'ed or natural deffects of one "ho is alive, and thereb! e3pose him
to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.( &ection *C provides that (All
la"s and parts of la"s no" in force, so far as the same ma! be in
conflict here"ith, are hereb! repealed. . . .(
That parts of la"s in force in *+)* "hen the =ibel =a" too. effect, "ere in
conflict there"ith, and that the =ibel =a" abro'ated certain portion of the
&panish Penal Code, cannot be 'ainsaid. Title D of Boo. 22 of the Penal Code,
coverin' the sub8ects of calumn! and insults, must have been particularl!
affected b! the =ibel =a". 2ndeed, in the earl! case of Pardo de Tavera vs. -arcia
Ealde5 >F*+)#G, *. Phil., @%H?, the &upreme Court spo.e of the =ibel =a" as
(reformin) the pree3istin' &panish la" on the sub8ect of calumnia and in*uria.(
Recentl!, specific attention "as 'iven to the effect of the =ibel =a" on the provisions
of the Penal Code, dealin' "ith calumn! and insults, and it "as found that those
provisions of the Penal Code on the sub8ect of calumn! and insults in "hich the
elements of "ritin' an publicit! entered, "ere abro'ated b! the =ibel =a".
>People vs. Castro F*+##G, p. H@#, ante.?
The =ibel =a" must have had the same result on other provisions of the Penal Code,
as for instance article #$%.
The facts here are that the editor of a ne"spaper published an article, naturall! in
"ritin', "hich ma! have had the tendenc! to impeach the honest!, virtue, or
reputation of members of the Philippine &enate, thereb! possibl! e3posin' them to
public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, "hich is e3actl! libel, as defined b! the =ibel
=a". &ir A. ,. &tephen is authorit! for the statement that a libel is indictable "hen
defamin' a (bod! of persons definite and small enou'h for individual members to be
reco'ni5ed as such, in or b! means of an!thin' capable of bein' a libel.( >7i'est of
Criminal =a", art. #%/.? But in the <nited &tates, "hile it ma! be proper to prosecute
criminall! the author of a libel char'in' a le'islator "ith corruption, criticisms, no
matter ho" severe, on a le'islature, are "ithin the ran'e of the libert! of the press,
unless the intention and effect be seditious. >C ;harton:s Criminal =a", p. #*C*.?
;ith these facts and le'al principles in mind, recall that article #$% be'ins0 An!
person "ho, b! . . .!ritin), shall defame, abuse, or insult an! Minister of the Cro"n
or other person in authorit!,( etc.
The =ibel =a" is a complete and comprehensive la" on the sub8ect of libel. The
"ell-.no"n rule of statutor! construction is, that "here the later statute clearl!
covers the old sub8ect-matter of antecedent acts, and it plainl! appears to have been
the purpose of the le'islature to 'ive e3pression in it to the "hole la" on the sub8ect,
previous la"s are held to be repealed b! necessar! implication. >* =e"is: &utherland
&tatutor! Construction, p. @%$.? ,or identical reasons, it is evident that Act No. #//
had the effect so much of this article as punishes defamation, abuse, or insults b!
"ritin'.
Act No. #+# of the Philippine Commission, the Treason and &edition =a", ma! also
have affected article #$%, but as to this point, it is not necessar! to ma.e a
pronouncement.
#. Effect of the chan)e from 'panish to Amercian sevorei)nty over the
hilippine son article #%& of the 'panish enal (ode. B Appellant:s main
proposition in the lo"er court and a'ain ener'eticall! pressed in the
appellate court "as that article #$% of the &panish Penal Code is not no" in
force because abro'ated b! the chan'e from &panish to American
soverei'nt! over the Philippines and because inconsistent "ith democratic
principles of 'overnment. This vie" "as indirectl! favored b! the trial
8ud'e, and, as before stated, is the opinion of three members of this court.
Article #$% is found in Chapter E of title 222 of Boo. 22 of the &panish Penal Code.
Title 2 of Boo. 22 punishes the crimes of treason, crimes that endan'er the peace
or independence of the state, crimes a'ainst international la", and the crime of
pirac!. Title 22 of the same boo. punishes the crimes of lese ma*este, crimes
a'ainst the (ortesand its members and a'ainst the council of ministers, crimes
a'ainst the form of 'overnment, and crimes committed on the occasion of the
e3ercise of ri'hts 'uaranteed b! the fundamental la"s of the state, includin'
crime a'ainst reli'ion and "orship. Title 222 of the same Boo., in "hich article
#$% is found, punishes the crimes of rebellion, sedition, assaults upon persons in
authorit!, and their a'ents, and contempts, insults, in*urias, and threats a'ainst
persons in authorit!, and insults, in*urias, and threats a'ainst their a'ents and
other public officers, the last bein' the title to Chapter E. The first t"o articles in
Chapter E define and punish the offense of contempt committed b! an! one "ho
shall be "ord or deed defame, abuse, insult, or threathen a minister of the cro"n,
or an! person in authorit!. The "ith an article condemnin' challen'es to fi'ht
duels intervenin', comes article #$%, no" bein' "ei'hed in the balance. 2t reads
as follo"s0 (An! person "ho, b! "ord, deed, or "ritin', shall defame, abuse, or
insult any Minister of the (ro!n or other person in authority, "hile en'a'ed in
the performance of official duties, or b! reason of such performance, provided
that the offensive minister or person, or the offensive "ritin' be not addressed to
him, shall suffer the penalt! of arresto mayor,( B that is, the defamation, abuse,
or insult of an! Minister of the (ro!n of the Monarchy of 'pain >for there could
not be a Minister of the Cro"n in the <nited &tates of America?, or other person
in authority in the Monarchy of 'pain.
2t cannot admit of doubt that all those provisions of the &panish Penal Code
havin' to do "ith such sub8ects as treason, lese ma*este, reli'ion and "orship,
rebellion, sedition, and contempts of ministers of the cro"n, are not lon'er in
force. 6ur present tas., therefore, is a determination of "hether article #$% has
met the same fate, or, more specificall! stated, "hether it is in the nature of a
municipal la" or political la", and is consistent "ith the Constitution and la"s
of the <nited &tates and the characteristics and institutions of the American
-overnment.
2t is a 'eneral principle of the public la" that on acuisition of territor! the
previous political relations of the ceded re'ion are totall! abro'ated. (Political(
is here used to denominate the la"s re'ulatin' the relations sustained b! the
inhabitants to the soverei'n. >American 2nsurance Co. vs. Canter F*H#HG, * Pet.,
$**I Chica'o, Roc. 2sland and Pacific Rail"a! Co. vs. Mc-linn F*HH$G, **@
<.&., $@#I Roa vs. Collector of Customs F*+*#G, #C Phil., C*$.? Mr. Austice ,ield
of the <nited &tates &upreme Court stated the obvious "hen in the course of his
opinion in the case of Chica'o, Roc. 2sland and Pacific Rail"a!
Co. vs. Mc-linn, supra, he said0 (As a matter of course, all la"s, ordinances and
re'ulations in conflict "ith the political character, institutions and Constitution
of the ne" 'overnment are at once displaced. Thus, upon a cession of political
8urisdiction and le'islative po"er B and the latter is involved in the former B to
the <nited &tates, the la!s of the country in support of an established reli'ion
or abrid)in) the freedom of the press, or authori5in' cruel and unusual
punishments, and he li+e" !ould at once cease to be of obli)atory force "ithout an!
declaration to that effect.( To uote a'ain from the <nited &tates &upreme Court0 (,t
cannot be admitted that the -in) of 'pain could" by treaty or other!ise" impart to the
.nited 'tates any of his royal prero)ativesI and much less can it be admitted that
the! have capacit! to receive or po"er to e3ercise them. Ever! nation acuirin'
territor!, b! treat! or other"ise, must hold it sub8ect to the Constitution and la"s of
its o"n 'overnment, and not accordin' to those of the 'overnment cedin' it.(
>Pollard vs.1a'an F*H@$G, C 1os., #*).?
6n American occupation of the Philippines, b! instructions of the President to the
Militar! Commander dated Ma! #H, *H+H, and b! proclamation of the latter, the
municipal la"s of the conuered territor! affectin' private ri'hts of person and
propert! and providin' for the punishment of crime "ere nominall! continued in
force in so far as the! "ere compatible "ith the ne" order of thin's. But President
Mc9inle!, in his instructions to -eneral Merritt, "as careful to sa!0 (The first effect
of the militar! occupation of the enem!:s territor! is the severance of the former
political relation of the inhabitants and the establishment of a ne" political po"er.(
,rom that da! to this, the ordinaril! it has been ta.en for 'ranted that the provisions
under consideration "ere still effective. To paraphrase the lan'ua'e of the <nited
&tates &upreme Court in ;eems vs. <nited &tates >F*+*)G, #*/ <. &., C@+?, there "as
not and could not be, e3cept as precise uestions "ere presented, a careful
consideration of the codal provisions and a determination of the e3tent to "hich the!
accorded "ith or "ere repu'nant to the (/)reat principles of liberty and la!/ !hich
had been /made the basis of our )overnmental system./ ( But "hen the uestion has
been suarel! raised, the appellate court has been forced on occasion to hold certain
portions of the &panish codes repu'nant t democratic institutions and American
constitutional principles. ><.&. vs. &"eet F*+)*G, * Phil., *HI <.&. vs. Balcorta F*+*CG,
#$ Phil., #/CI <.&. vs. Balcorta F*+*CG, #$ Phil., $CCI ;eems vs. <.&., supra.?
The nature of the 'overnment "hich has been set up in the Philippines under
American soverei'nt! "as outlined b! President Mc9inle! in that Ma'na Charta of
Philippine libert!, his instructions to the Commission, of April /, *+)). 2n part, the
President said0
2n all the forms of 'overnment and administrative provisions "hich the! are
authori5ed to prescribe, the Commission should bear in mind that he
'overnment "hich the! are establishin' is desi'ned not for our satisfaction
or for the e3pression of our theoretical vie"s, but for the happiness, peace,
and prosperit! of the people of the Philippine 2slands, and the measures
adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and even
their pre8udices, to the fullest e3tent consistent "ith the accomplishment of
the indispensable reuisites of 8ust and effective 'overnment. At the same
time the Commission should bear in mind, and the people of the ,slands
should be made plainly to understand" that there are certain )reat principles
of )overnment !hich have been made the basis of our )overnmental
system" !hich !e deem essential to the rule of la! and the maintenance
of individual freedom" and of !hich they have" unfortunately" been
denied the e0perience possessed by us1 that there are also certain
practical rules of )overnment !hich !e have found to be essential to the
preservation of these )reat principles of liberty and la!" and that these
principles and these rules of )overnment must be established and
maintained in their islands for the sa+e of their liberty and happiness,
ho"ever much the! ma! conflict "ith the customs or la"s of procedure
"ith "hich the! are familiar. 2t is evident that the most enli'thened
thou'ht of the Philippine 2slands full! appreciates the importance of
these principles and rules, and the! "ill inevitabl! "ithin a short time
command universal assent.
The courts have naturall! ta.en the same vie". Mr. Austice Elliott, spea.in' for
our &upreme Court, in the case of <nited &tates vs. Bull >F*+*)G, *$ Phil., /?,
said0 (The President and Con'ress framed the 'overnment on the model "ith
"hich American are familiar, and "hich has proven best adapted for the
advancement of the public interests and the protection of individual ri'hts and
privile'es.(
Therefore, it has come "ith some"hat of a shoc. to hear the statement made that
the happiness, peace, and prosperit! of the people of the Philippine 2slands and
their customs, habits, and pre8udices, to follo" the lan'ua'e of President
Mc9inle!, demand obeisance to authorit!, and ro!al protection for that authorit!.
Accordin' to our vie", article #$% of the &panish Penal Code "as enacted b! the
-overnment of &pain to protect &panish officials "ho "ere the representatives
of the 9in'. ;ith the chan'e of soverei'nt!, a ne" 'overnment, and a ne"
theor! of 'overnment, as set up in the Philippines. 2t "as in no sense a
continuation of the old, althou'h merel! for convenience certain of the e3istin'
institutions and la"s "ere continued. The demands "hich the ne" 'overnment
made, and ma.es, on the individual citi5en are li.e"ise different. No lon'er is
there a Minister of the Cro"n or a person in authorit! of such e3alted position
that the citi5en must spea. of him onl! "ith bated breath. (,n the eye of our
(onstitution and la!s" every man is a soverei)n" a ruler and a freeman" and has
e2ual ri)hts !ith every other man. ;e have no ran. or station, e3cept that of
respectabilit! and intelli'ence as opposed to indecenc! and i'norance, and the
door to this ran. stands open to ever! man to freel! enter and abide therein, if he
is ualified, and "hether he is ualified or not depends upon the life and
character and attainments and conduct of each person for himself. Ever! man
ma! la"full! do "hat he "ill, so lon' as it is notmalum in se or malum
prohibitum or does not infrin'e upon the uall! sacred ri'hts of others.(
>&tate vs.&hepherd F*+)CG, *// Mo., #)$I ++ A. &. R., %#@.?
2t is true that in En'land, from "hich so man! of the la"s and institutions of the
<nited &tates are derived, there "ere once statutes of scandalum ma)natum, under
"hich "ords "hich "ould not be actionable if spo.en of an ordinar! sub8ect "ere
made actionable if spo.en of a peer of the realm or of an! of the 'reat officers of the
Cro"n, "ithout proof of an! special dama'e. The Cro"n of En'land, unfortunatel!,
too. a vie" less tolerant that that of other soverei'ns, as for instance, the Emperors
Au'ustus, Caesar, and Tiberius. These En'lish statutes have, ho"ever, lon' since,
become obsolete, "hile in the <nited &tates, the offense of scandalum ma)natum is
not .no"n. 2n the earl! da!s of the American Republic, a sedition la" "as enacted,
ma.in' it an offense to libel the -overnment, the Con'ress, or the President of the
<nited &tates, but the la" met "ith so much popular disapproval, that it "as soon
repealed. (,n this country no distinction as to persons is reco)nized, and in practice a
person holdin' a hi'h office is re'arded as a tar'et at "hom an! person ma! let fl!
his poisonous "ords. 1i'h official position, instead of affordin' immunit! from
slanderous and libelous char'es, seems rather to be re'arded as ma.in' his character
free plunder for an! one "ho desires to create a senation b! attac.in' it.( >Ne"ell,
&lander and =ibel, Cd ed., p. #@$I &illars vs. Collier F*H+)G, *$* Mass., $)I % =.R.A.,
%H).?
Article #$% of the Penal Code is contrar! to the 'enius and fundamental principles of
the American character and s!stem of 'overnment. The 'ulf "hich separates this
article from the spirit "hich inspires all penal le'islation of American ori'in, is as
"ide as that "hich separates a monarch! from a democratic Republic li.e that of the
<nited &tates. This article "as cro"ded out b! implication as soon as the <nited
&tates established its authorit! in the Philippine 2slands. Penalties out of all
proportion to the 'ravit! of the offense, 'rounded in a distorted monarchical
conception of the nature of political authorit!, as opposed to the American conception
of the protection of the interests of the public, have been obliterated b! the present
s!stem of 'overnment in the 2slands. *a"phJl.net
,rom an entirel! different point of vie", it must be noted that this article punishes
contempts a'ainst e3ecutive officials, althou'h its terms are broad enou'h to cover
the entire official class. Punishment for contempt of non-8udicial officers has no
place in a 'overnment based upon American principles. 6ur official class is not, as in
monarchies, an a'ent of some authorit! 'reater than the people but it is an a'ent and
servant of the people themselves. These officials are onl! entitled to respect and
obedience "hen the! are actin' "ithin the scope of their authorit! and 8urisdiction.
The American s!stem of 'overnment is calculated to enforce respect and obedience
"here such respect and obedience is due, but never does it place around the
individual "ho happens to occup! an official position b! mandate of the people an!
official halo, "hich calls for drastic punishment for contemptuous remar.s.
The crime of lese ma*este disappeared in the Philippines "ith the ratification of the
Treat! of Paris. Ministers of the Cro"n have no place under the American fla'.
To summari5e, the result is, that all the members of the court are of the opinion,
althou'h for different reasons, that the 8ud'ment should be reversed and the
defendant and appellant acuitted, "ith costs de officio. &o ordered.
3strand and 4ohns" 44." concur.
Se#$r$te O#%&%o&'
!R!ULLO, C.J., concurrin'0
2 concur "ith the dispositive part of the fore'oin' decision, that is, "ith the
acuittal of the accused, for the sole reason that the facts alle'ed in the
information do not constitute a violation of article #$% of the Penal CodeI for
althou'h that article is in force "ith respect to calumn!, in8uria, or insult, b!
deed or "ord, a'ainst an authorit! in the performance of his duties or b! reason
thereof, outside of his presence, it is repealed b! the =ibel =a" in so far as it
refers to calumn!, in8uria, or insult committed a'ainst an authorit! b! "ritin' or
printin', as "as that inserted in the said information.
ROMU!L"E(, J., concurrin'0
2 concur "ith the result. 2 believe that the responsibilit! of the accused has not
been sho"n either under article #$% of the Penal Code or under the =ibel =a".
2 am of the opinion that article #$% of the Penal Code is still in force, e3cept as it
refers to (Ministers of the Cro"n,( "hom "e do not have in our -overnment,
and to calumn!, in*uria, or insult, b! "ritin' or printin', committed a'ainst an
authorit! in the performance of his duties or b! reason thereof, "hich portion
"as repealed b! the =ibel =a".
4ohnson" 'treet" Avance5a and Villamor" 44." concur.

También podría gustarte