G.R. No. 11067. March 06, 1917
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. VICENTE SOTTO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
MORELAND, J.:
the information in the Court of First Instance upon the ground (a)
“that more than one offense is charged.” and (b) ” that the facts charged do not
constitute a public offense.” The demurrer was sustained on the first ground and
the information dismissed. This appeal is from the judgment of dismissal based
on the order sustaining the demurrer.
We are of the opinion that the judgment must be reversed and the demurrer
overruled. The information is as follows:
“That during the period from the 1st day of May, 1915, to the 22d of the said
moth and year, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, within the
jurisdiction of this court, the said defedant, Vicente Sotto, being the
director, editor, manager, and printer of the weekly paper known as “The
Independent,’ edited and published in English and Spanish in the city of Manila,
with the intention of attacking the honesty, virtue, and reputation of Lope K.
Santos, Jose Turiano Santiago and Hermenegildo Cruz, the principal leaders of
the association known as the ‘Congreso Obrero de Filipinas,’ and with the
malicious intention of exposing the said Lope K. Santos, Jose Turiano Santiago,
and Hermenegildo Cruz to public hatred, contempt and ridicule as private
citizens and as the leaders of the said associatino, voluntarily, illegally,
criminally and maliciously published and caused to be published of the three
persons above named a certain false, injurious and malicious defamation and
libel tending to attack the honesty, virtue and reputation of the same, on page
23 of issue No. 4 of the said weekly paper, dated May 1, 1915, which said
publication is as follows:
” ‘WITHOUT MALICE.
” ‘Having become tired of seeing the workingmen at the mercy of parasites
who, under the guise of a false sympathy for the laboring classes, exploit the
proletariat, making the latter the plaything of their ambitions and machiavelian
manipulations; weary of these self-styled labor leaders who are pointed out by
the people as the ones responsible for the malversation of workingmen’s funds,
the bankruptcy of the “Tagumpay,” the “Katubusan scandals,” the disappearance of
a promissory note from the office of attorney Diokno, the misappropriation of
funds in the management of the “El Ideal,” the combination which resulted in the
failure of the seamen and street-car employees’ strikes, and other numerous
blunders committed by the said labor leaders, all of which has left the
proletariat in the situation of a victim plucked by the very ones who set
themselves up as their defenders; and realizing that our cause is in danger,
now, for the sake of our honor, dignity of the laboring classes, we believe that
the time has come to speak plainly and to put an end for once and all to so many
parasites.” ‘If all these charges are true, it is hard to understand why the workingmen
have continued until now under the control of their present leaders.” ‘Who is to blame?
” ‘Victi.’
“which said libelous publication was amplified by a cartoon
published on page 1 of issue No. 7 of the said weekly paper ‘The Independent,’
on the 22d of May, 1915, which was also published at the place and on the date
above mentioned, which said cartoon, in which, among others, there appear the
caricatures of the aforesaid parties, is made an integral part of this
information as Exhibit A; that the said defendant on the aforesaid date and
place intended to accuse, as in fact he did accuse, Lope K. Santos of being
responsible for certain scandals which occurred int he cigar and cigarette
factory ‘Katubusan’ and for the disappearance of a promissory note from the
office of attorney Ramon Diokno and of being indebted to the firm of E. C.
McCullough & Co. and to the printer I. Morales, both of this City of Manila;
accusing also Jose Turiano Santiago, one of the organizers of the seamen and
street-car employees’ strikes, of being responsible for certain combinations and
insinuating that he had received the sum of P2,000 to bring about the failure of
the said strikes; and accusing also Hermenegildo Cruz of being responsible for
the bankruptcy of the printing establishment ‘Tagumpay,’ of certain scandals in
the aforesaid factory ‘Katubusan’ and of the misappropriation of funds in the
administration of the newspaper ‘El Ideal;’ and accusing all of the said three
parties of the malversation of workingmen’s funds; and that the said malicious
defamation was published and circulated at the said time and place by the
defendant in the manner above set forth with the intention of attacking the
honesty, virtue and reputation of the said Lope K. Santos, Jose Turiano Santiago
and Hermenegildo Cruz, thereby exposing them to public hatred, contempt and
ridicule.“All contrary to the law in such cases made and
provided.”
It is contended that each publication set out in the information
is libelous in itself and, therefore, constitutes a crime; and, as a necessary
result, that two crimes are charged in the information. We do not believe this
contention is sound. The only purpose of including in the information the second
publication was to complete the publication. The first publication mentions no
names. It speaks of labor leaders in general but of no one in particular. It
employs, however, certain words and phrases such as “the bankruptcy of the
Tagumpay,” “the Katubusan scandal,” “the disapprearance of a
promissory note from the office of Attorney Diokno,” “the misappropriation of
funds in the management of El Ideal,” and “the combinations which
resulted in the failure of the seaman and street-car employees’ strikes.” The
second publication consists of a cartoon in which the person referred to in the
first publication are caricatured by name and to each one of them is attached
one of the words or phrases just mentioned, thereby identifying him as one of
the persons meant in the first publication. In the first publication, as we have
seen, the labor leaders referred to are charged with having caused “the
bankruptcy of the Tagumpay.” In the cartoon we have the picture of a
man labeled “H. Cruz” carrying a banner which bears, among others, the word
“Tagumpay.” The first publication also mentions “the Katubusan
scandal.” In the cartoon the word “Katubusan scandal.” In the cartoon the word
“Katubusan” is found inscribed on a banner carried by H. Cruz and also
upon one carried by a person labeled “L. K. Santos.” In the first publication we
have also the charge that the labor leaders therein referred to were responsible
for “the disappearance of a promissory note from the office of Attorney Diokno.”
The word “Diokno” appears in the cartoon upon the banner carried by “L. K.
Santos.” On the banner carried by H. Cruz are the words “El Ideal” to
which reference is found in the first publication where the labor leaders are
charged with responsibility for the disappearance of funds belonging to “El
Ideal.” A person named “J. Turiano” is seated at a table with a dish before
him labeled “Labor Congress” which he is engaged in eating. He also holds in his
hand a banner carrying the devices “seamen strike and street-car employee
strike.” The banner borne by L. K. Santos carried in addition to the words
“Katubusan” and “Diokno” the words “McCullough” and “Morales.”From the
mouths of the three figures thus depicted in the cartoon, H. Cruz, J. Turiano
and L. K. Santos, issue the words respectively “I am the first leader,” “And I
am the second,” and “And I am the third.”
The evident purpose and result of the publication of the cartoon,
called the second publication, was to make clear to the public that the three
men named in the cartoon were the labor leaders referred to in the first
publication. The effect of the cartoon was to give form and substance to the
insinuations and references made in the first publication and the persons to
whom they were directed. It served as the means of identification of the unnamed
persons who were the subject of the first publication; and also of placing upon
each one the particular offense of which the first publication charged him. It
not only served to identify but it also served to point out the person upon whom
should fall the odium of the particular charge made.
These are the primary objects of the cartoon and were the effects
produced on the public. While it may be true that each one of the publications
was a separate lible against would have been somewhat difficult, as a matter of
evidence, to substantiate a charge of libel upon either the one or the other
publication. The charge in the first publication was general and it would have
been necessary to make and prove all of the allegations required to establish
the fact that the public understood who the persons were referred to in the
publications and the nature of the charge against each of them. In the second
publication the same difficulty would have been experienced, although in a
somewhat different from. There the names of the persons were mentioned; but the
character of the acts of which they were charged was not disclosed. In that case
it would have been necessary to establish by evidence that the public understood
what the word “Diokno,” for example, referred to and also the character of the
transaction to which it alluded. Confronted with these difficulties it was
apparent to the prosecutor that a combination of the two publications would
produce such a result as partly to relieve him from what might be an
embarrassing position. The two publications would complete each other. It is
well known that a libel may be published in parts, neither part being a complete
libel in itself but all of the parts taken together constituting a libelous
publication. It is also well recognized that different publications are
necessary to complete the libel, or whether they are together necessary to
complete the phraseology, to avoid ambiguity, or to identify the persons
referred to in one publication, or to show the character of the acts charge.
This joinder of the separate parts or publications in one indictment is
permissible even though each separate publication constitutes a libel in itself,
provided all of the different publications refer to the same subject-matter and
are necessary or convenient for the completion of the other. A prosecuting
attorney may describe in his pleading a complete libel, and to that end he may
join all of the separate publications necessary to complete the libel either
verbally, or for the identification of the persons referred to in the other
publication, or to show the character of the acts which they are charged with
having performed; and he may do this notwithstanding the fact that each
publication constitutes a libel.
In the present case the prosecuting attorney was within the law
when he joined the two publication in one information even though each
publication be considered a separate libel, it being clear that the publications
supplemented each other, each supplying the deficiencies found in the other.
While, as we have already said, the cartoon contains two things
not found in the first publication, namely, a reference to McCullough and
another to Morales, we doubt if the allegations of the information are
sufficient to charge any crime with respect to those two matters. This being so,
it is clear that the information does nothing more than use the cartoon as a
continuation of the first publication, making both publications together serve
as a basis for charging one crime, that charged in connection with the first
publication. Such being the case the accused can be convicted under the
information of only one crime.
For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the demurrer was
improperly sustained and that the judgment entered upon the order sustaining the
demurrer must be reversed.
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the case remanded with
instructions to proceed with the case. So ordered.
Arellano C. J., Torres, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.