G.R. No. 13017. March 09, 1918
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ENRIQUE ITURRIUS ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ENRIQUE ITURRIUS, APPELLANT.
JOHNSON, J.:
Ambos Camarines presented a complaint against the said defendants for a
violation of the Election Law. The complaint alleged:
“That, on or about October 3, 1916, in the municipality of Iriga, Province of
Ambos Camarines, P. I., and in the first precinct of said municipality, a
special election for senators was held in the Sixth Senatorial District, the
accused being the election inspectors, duly appointed and qualified and acting
as such, Enrique Iturrius, as chairman of the election board, and Felipe
Carrascoso and Lope S. Ubalde, as members thereof.
“That said accused, Enrique Iturrius, Felipe Carrascoso, and Lope S. Ubalde,
as such election inspectors, did, voluntarily, unlawfully, criminally, and
knowingly, draw up and sign an election return in which they set forth and made
it to appear, and so certified under their signatures, that Messrs. Jose
Fuentebella, Tomas Arejola, Tomas Almonte, Vicente de Vera, Mariano Abella, and
Mario Guarina, who were candidates for the office of senator, had, in said
election, each received respectively the following number of votes:
………………………………………………………
Arejola…………………………………………………………..
Almonte………………………………………………………….
Vera…………………………………………………………
Abella…………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………..
when, in reality, as the said accused well knew, said Jose Fuentebella
received about 438 votes; Tomas Arejola, about 280 votes; Tomas Almonte, about
123 votes; Mariano Abella, about 67 votes; Vicente de Vera, about 61 votes; and
Mario Guarina, about 16 votes.
“Acts committed in violation of law.”
Upon said complaint each of the defendants was duly arrested and arraigned.
Upon arraignment they each plead not guilty. Later the defendants Felipe
Carrascoso and Lope S. Ubalde expressed, in open court, their desire to withdraw
their plea of “not guilty” and to substitute therefor the plea of “guilty,”
which request was granted by the court and the plea of “guilty” was entered by
them. Immediately upon hearing the plea of “guilty” the Honorable Isidro
Paredes, judge, upon a consideration of the facts alleged in the complaint,
sentenced each of them to pay a fine of P450 and, in case of insolvency, to
suffer six months of subsidiary imprisonment, and each to pay one-third part of
the costs. The court further ordered that said fine shall be paid not later than
the 15th day of May, 1917, and in case of a failure to pay the same on or before
said date, that said defendants be arrested and placed in the provincial jail
for the purpose of complying with said sentence.
On the 26th day of April, 1917, the defendant Enrique Iturrius was duly
arraigned and plead not guilty, and the court proceeded with the trial of the
said case on the same day. After hearing the evidence the Honorable Isidro
Paredes found the defendant guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and
sentenced him to be imprisoned for a period of eight months and to pay a fine of
P300 and, in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance
with the provisions of the law, and to pay one-third part of the costs. From
that sentence the defendant Enrique Iturrius appealed to this court.
His attorney in this court admits the guilt of the appellant, but pleads for
a reduction of the penalty imposed by the lower court. In the brief of the
appellant we find the following statement admitting that he is guilty of the
crime charged:
“That he studied carefully, page by page, the whole record of the case, and
ingenuously confesses that the facts upon which the decision of the lower court
is based—facts which constitute the elements of the crime with which the
appellant is charged—are supported by the evidence presented by the prosecution,
and this evidence has not in any way been over-thrown by the defense, but that,
on the contrary, same was admitted, not to state that it was corroborated, by
the testimony of the accused himself, through his own statements as well as his
admission of all the exhibits of the prosecution, especially the Exhibit marked
K which is a confession voluntarily and spontaneously made by the accused
himself without any promise being made to him.”
The admission of the appellant of his guilt of the crime charged in the
complaint renders it unnecessary to make an extensive analysis of the evidence
adduced during the trial of the cause further than to say that, in addition to
the fact that the proof shows, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
committed the acts charged in the complaint, we have his own declaration in
which he fully and frankly confessed his guilt.
Rarely are the courts called upon to decide criminal cases which show a
greater culpability on the part of an appellant than the facts in the present
case. The appellant, by his own confession, has convicted himself of an attempt
to defeat the will of the people in their participation in the affairs of their
own self-government. The people of the Philippine Islands have been granted the
right to select, by secret .ballot, the men who shall make laws for them. They
have been given a right to participate directly in the form of government under
which they live. Such a right is among the most important and sacred of the
rights of the people in self-government, and one which must be most vigilantly
guarded if a people desires to maintain for themselves and their posterity a
republican form of government in which the individual may, in accordance with
law, have a voice in the form of his government. If republics are to survive and
if the people are to continue to exercise the right to govern themselves and to
directly participate in the affairs ot their government by selecting their
representatives by secret ballot, then the maxims of such a government must be
left to the watchful care and reverential guardianship of the people. Eternal
vigilance is the price paid by a free people for a continuance of their right to
directly participate in the affairs of their government. Designing, ambitious,
corrupt, and unscrupulous politicians, if the people are off their guard, will
ingeniously and persistently encroach upon the rights of an unwary people, and
will, finally, undermine the very foundations of self-government and the rights
of the people. It behooves the people under a free government to prosecute to
the limit, without stint or favor, every person who attempts, in the slightest
degree, to interfere with, or who attempts to defeat, their direct
participation, by secret ballot, under the forms prescribed by law, in the
affairs of their government. If nefarious practices of officials of the
government, such as is described in the complaint in the present case, are to be
continued or permitted by those in authority, and punishment is not meted out
speedily and severely upon those who rob the people of their political rights,
the result is generally a revolution in which the people again repossess
themselves of the jewels of personal and political liberty and the right to
self-government, through blood and carnage.
The defendant not only convicts himself out of his own mouth of an attempt to
defeat the will of the people of his district in their effort to choose their
representatives in the legislative branch of the Government, but also violated
his oath of office in which he asked God to help him honestly and justly to
administer his duties as an inspector of elections without prejudice or favor
toward any person, candidate, party, society, or religious sect, which oath must
have been taken freely or without evasion or mental reservation whatsoever.
(Sec. 516, Act No. 2657; sec. 419, Act No. 2711.) In addition to convicting
himself of an attempt to violate the rights of the people, together with the
violation of a solemn oath, he also convicts himself of the falsification of a
public document, and might be punished for the latter offense in a manner very
much more severe than for the crime for which he is being tried. (Arts. 300 and
301 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2712.)
In consideration of all of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the
maximum penalty of the law should be imposed. Therefore, the sentence of the
lower court is hereby revoked, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the
defendant and appellant be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of one year
and to pay a fine of P500 and costs, and, in case of insolvency, to suffer
subsidiary imprisonment for the payment of said fine. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Araullo, Street, and Fisher, JJ.,
concur.
[1] Published by authority of
resolution of October 4, 1918.