Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People v. Umali
Sentenced by trial court to: complex crime of rebellion with
multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery
Accused staged a raid in the town of Tiaong, Quezon, between 8:00
and 9:00 in the evening. Said raid took place resulting in the (1)
burning down and complete destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial
Punzalan including its content valued at P24,023; (2) the house of
Valentin Robles valued at P10,000, and (3) the house of one Mortega,
(4) the death of Patrolman Domingo Pisigan and civilians Vicente
Soriano and Leocadio Untalan, and the (5) wounding of Patrolman
Pedro Lacorte and five civilians; that during and after the burning of
the houses, some of the raiders (6) engaged in looting, robbing one
house and two Chinese stories; and that the raiders were finally
dispersed and driven from the town by the Philippine Army soldiers
stationed in the town.
Political background: Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan were old time
friends and belonged to the same political faction. They both helped
each other get elected as Congressman and Mayor, respectively. But,
Umali became jealous because of Punzalan's fast growing popularity
among the people of Tiaong who looked to him instead of Umali for
political guidance, leadership, and favors. In time the strain in their
relations became such that they ceased to have any dealings with
each other and they even filed mutual accusations. Umali even
convinced 26 of Punzalans policemen to go and join the Huks, but
were subsequently persuaded to give up their arms.
Then the elections approached and Punzalan ran for reelection. To
oppose him, and to clip his political wings and definitely blast his
ambition for continued power and influence in Tiaong, Umali picked
Epifanio Pasumbal, his trusted leader. The pre-election campaign and
fight waged by both factions Punzalan and Pasumbal, was intense
and bitter, even ruthless.
The result of the elections plainly showed that Punzalan was the
political master and leader in Tiaong. He beat Pasumbal by an
overwhelming majority of 2,221 votes. Naturally, Umali and Pasumbal
were keenly disappointed, and according to the evidence, adopted
measures calculated to frustrate Punzalan's victory, even as
prophesied by Umali himself in one of his pre-election speeches about
blood flowing and gold coffin.
PURPOSE
Political- to overthrow
the duly constituted
government
USE OF FIREARM
Use of firearm is an
essential ingredient of
rebellion
May be political or
social for carrying out
protest or
disobedience from a
governmental action
and not for the
purpose of
overthrowing the
government. The act
may be against a
social class.
The use of firearm is
not an essential
ingredient
US v. Tolentino
Aurelio Tolentino was charged with inciting to sedition by allegedly
making false, seditious, and inflammatory words and scurrilous libels in
Tagalog language in a theatrical work written by, and presented by him
and others at the "Teatro Libertad" entitled 'Kahapon gayon at Bukas'
(Yesterday, To-day, and To-morrow).
SC: We are all agreed that the publication and presentation of the
drama directly and necessarily tend to instigate others to cabal and
meet together for unlawful purposes, and to suggest and incite
rebellious conspiracies and riots and to stir up the people against the
lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of the community and the
safety and order of the Government.
The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play, in view of the time,
place, and manner of its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of
hatred and enmity against the American people and the Government
of the United States in the Philippines, and we are satisfied that the
principal object and intent of its author was to incite the people of the
Philippine Islands to open and armed resistance to the constituted
authorities, and to induce them to conspire together for the secret
organization of armed forces, to be used when the opportunity
presented itself, for the purpose of overthrowing the present
Government and setting up another in its stead.
Defense: Counsel for the appellant insists that the intent of the
accused to commit the crime with which he is charged does not appear
from the evidence of record, and that the drama is, in itself, a purely
And if they ask why I did not like the administration of Roxas, point out
to them the situation in Central Luzon, the Leyte.
Dear wife, write to President Truman and Churchill. Tell them that here
in the Philippines our government is infested with many Hitlers and
Mussolinis
Teach our children to burn pictures of Roxas if and when they come
across one.
I committed suicide because I am ashamed of our government under
Roxas. I cannot hold high my brows to the world with this dirty
government.
I committed suicide because I have no power to put under Juez de
Cuchillo all the Roxas people now in power. So, I sacrificed my own
self.
The latter is a scurrilous libel against the Government. It calls our
government one of crooks and dishonest persons (dirty) infested with
Nazis and a Fascistis i.e.dictators.
And the communication reveals a tendency to produce dissatisfaction
or a feeling incompatible with the disposition to remain loyal to the
government. Writings which tend to overthrow or undermine the
security of the government or to weaken the confidence of the people
in the government are against the public peace, and are criminal not
only because they tend to incite to a breach of the peace but because
they are conducive to the destruction of the very government itself.
With respect to Constitutional right to redress of grievances:
Not to be restrained is the privilege of any citizen to criticize his
government officials and to submit his criticism to the "free trade of
ideas" and to plead for its acceptance in "the competition of the
market." However, let such criticism be specific and therefore
constructive, reasoned or tempered, and not a contemptuous
condemnation of the entire government set-up. Such wholesale attack
is nothing less than an invitation to disloyalty to the government. In
the article now under examination one will find no particular
objectionable actuation of the government. It is called dirty, it is called
a dictatorship, it is called shameful, but no particular omissions or
commissions are set forth. Instead the article drip with male-violence
and hate towards the constituted authorities. It tries to arouse
animosity towards all public servants headed by President Roxas
whose pictures this appellant would burn and would teach the younger
generation to destroy.
Analyzed for meaning and weighed in its consequences the article
cannot fail to impress thinking persons that it seeks to sow the seeds
of sedition and strife. The infuriating language is not a sincere effort to
persuade, what with the writer's simulated suicide and false claim to
martyrdom and what with is failure to particularize. When the use
irritating language centers not on persuading the readers but on
creating disturbances, the rationable of free speech cannot apply and
the speaker or writer is removed from the protection of the
constitutional guaranty.
As to the object of the scurrilous libel: If it be argued that the
article does not discredit the entire governmental structure but only
President Roxas and his men, the reply is that article 142 punishes not
only all libels against the Government but also "libels against any of
the duly constituted authorities thereof." The "Roxas people" in the
Government obviously refer of least to the President, his Cabinet and
the majority of legislators to whom the adjectives dirty, Hitlers and
Mussolinis were naturally directed. On this score alone the conviction
could be upheld.
To top it all, the appellant proclaimed to his readers that he committed
suicide because he had "no power to put under juez de cuchillo all the
Roxas people now in power." Knowing, that the expression Juez de
Cuchillo means to the ordinary layman as the Law of the Knife, a
"summary and arbitrary execution by the knife", the idea intended by
the appellant to be conveyed was no other than bloody, violent and
unpeaceful methods to free the government from the administration of
Roxas and his men.
Martinez v. Morfe
There is, to be sure, a full recognition of the necessity to have
members of Congress, and likewise delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, entitled to the utmost freedom to enable them to
discharge their vital responsibilities, bowing to no other force except
the dictates of their conscience. Necessarily the utmost latitude in free
speech should be accorded them. When it comes to freedom from
arrest, however, it would amount to the creation of a privileged class,
without justification in reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a
criminal offense, they would be considered immune during their
attendance in Congress and in going to and returning from the same.
There is likely to be no dissent from the proposition that a legislator or
a delegate can perform his functions efficiently and well, without the