58 US vs. Mateo Lapus et al
The testimony of the witnesses called at the trial does not
Facts: A band of 400 men armed with guns, revolvers, talibones, bolos and
clubs raided the town. They also fired shots and frightened the inhabitants
and captivated them. The uprising was made because the rich people
were loaning money at usurious terms to their farm laborers and when the
latter were not able to pay the loan, they compelled their children to work
for them as servants and if the wealthy landowners continued oppressing
the poor, they would not stop disturbing the towns because the law must
be equally applied to the rich and poor.
Santa Iglesia, the association in which the accused belonged,
was organized for the prupose of performing acts of hatred and vengeance
against the authorities and the wealthy people.
Issue: WON the acts constituted sedition
Ruling: The facts as stated constitute the crime of sedition provided for I
par. 3 and 4 of section 5 and punished by section 6 of Act No. 292 of Civil
Commission. The appellants were members of an illegal association and
had publicly and tumultuously attacked the town and roamed over its
streets, firing shots, yelling and threatening the residents with death and
frightening them. They performed acts of violence on the persons of the
president and other residents of the town against the law and the supreme
authority and with political-social purposes.
For these reasons the acts performed by the defendants constitute
sedition as defined by the aforesaid sections of Act No. 292. The crime of
sedition was consummated even though the object of defendants was not
realized.
59 US vs. Apurado
Facts: Before the municipal council open its regular morning sessions,
Some 500 residents of the municipality assembled near the municipal
buildingA large number of those assembled about the building crowded
into the council chamber and demanded the dismissal from office of the
municipal treasurer, the secretary, and the chief of police and the
substitution in their places of new officials, because those officials took
sides in the religious difference between residents of the municipality. The
persons who took part were unarmed except few carried their canes. The
crowd was fairly orderly and well-behaved. The council acceded to their
wishes and drew up a formal document, which was signed by the
councilors and by several leaders of the crowd.
Issue: WON their acts constituted sedition
Ruling: No.
sustain these allegations. Not only were the individual members if the
crowd wholly unarmed but they were manifestly desirous that that fact
should be known for it appears that twi Americal officials having asked
what the purpose of the gathering was, were assured that the assemble
merely desired to petition for the removal of several municipal officials;
and in proof of the fact that they had no ontention of committing a breach
of peace, the members of the crowd raised their jackets and camisas to
prove that they were carrying no concealed weapons. The evidence of
record does not establish the guilt of the accused of the crime of sedition.
60 People v. Mendoza (nasa book to wala mahanap na orig case
eh)
Facts: Fiver persons armed with carbine and Tommy gun, attacked a truck
wherein eight policemen, the chief of police and other passengers were
riding. Two policemen, the truck operator and two children were killed and
two policemen were wounded. The accused were charged with the crime of
sedition with multiple murder and double frustrated murder.
Issue: WON the elements to constitute the crime of sedition are present
Ruling: There was no sedition because the purpose of the attack was not
known. The accused were held liable for five murders and two frustrated
murders.
61 People v. Perez
Facts: Perez, the municipal secretary and a citizen of the municipality
happened to meet the municipal building and 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 Woods head for having recommended a bad
thing for the Flipinos, for he has killed our independence.
Issue: WON Perez has uttered seditious words
Ruling: Yes, he uttered seditious words. The attack on the Governor-
Genereal passes the furthest bounds of free speech and common decency.
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.
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 statemend and done an act which tended to
stir up the people against the lawful authorites. He has made a statemend
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 characterize as penalized by
Section8 of Act No. 292 as amended.
71 DIRECT ASSAULT People vs. Balbar
Facts: Balbar entered the room where teacher Ester Gonzales was
conducting her classes. Without warning and tight after she had finished
wiring on the blackboard, Balbar placed his arms around her and kissed her
on the eyes. Instinctively, she pushed him away and tried to flee. He
brought his dagger out and pursued her, catching up eith her before she
was able to get out of the room. Balbar embraced her again at the same
time holding his dagger. They both fell on the floor which the complainant
sustain slight physical injuries.
Issue: Won there is direct assault
Ruling: Yes.
Where an information for direct assault upon a person in authority
sufficiently alleges that the accused knew that complainant was a school
teacher, was in her classroom and engaged in the performance of her
duties when she was assaulted, it is error to quash the same upon the
ground of absence of express allegation that the accused had knowledge
that she was a person in authority. The case should be remanded for trial
on the merits, for it matters not that such knowledge on his part is not
expressly alleged. It matters not that such knowledge on his part is no
expressly alleged, complainants status as a person in authority being a
matter of law and not of fact, ignorance where if could not excuse non-
compliance on his part.