People vs.
Perez
G.R. No. L-21049 December 22, 1923
FACTS:
Isaac Perez, the municipal secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon, and Fortunato Lodovice,
a citizen of that municipality, happening to meet on the morning of April 1, 1992, in
the presidencia of Pilar, they became engaged in a discussion regarding the
administration of Governor-General Wood, which resulted in Perez shouting a number
of times: "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."
Because of such utterances, he was charged in the CFI of Sorsogon with violation
of Art. 256 of the RPC which has something to do with contempt of ministers of the
Crown or other persons in authority. He was convicted. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
WON Perez’s remarks is protected by the constitutional protection on freedom of
speech.
HELD:
No , it is not. Agreed with the lower court in its findings of facts but convicted the
accused for violation of Act No. 292 (Section 8).
Act No. 292 (Section 8) states that “Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches,
or who shall write, publish or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States
or against the Government of the Philippine Islands, or who shall print, write, publish utter or make
any statement, or speech, or do any act which tends to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in
executing his office or in performing his duty, or which tends to instigate others to cabal or meet
together for unlawful purposes, or which suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or which tends to
stir up the people against the lawful authorities, or which tends to disturb the peace of the community
or the safety or order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices from the
constituted authorities, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars United States
currency or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.”
It is of course fundamentally true that the provisions of Act No. 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 Government for redress of grievances. Criticism is
permitted to penetrate even to the foundations of Government. 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. But when the intention
and effect of the act is seditious, 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. (III Wharton's Criminal Law, pp. 2127 et seq.;
U.S. vs. Apurado [1907], 7 Phil., 422; People vs. Perfecto, supra)
In this instance, the attack on the Governor-General passes the furthest bounds
of free speech was intended. There is a seditious tendency in the words used, which
could easily produce disaffection among the people and a state of feeling incompatible
with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and obedient to the laws.
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.
