G. R. No. 36277. October 26, 1932
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CRISANTO EVANGELISTA AND ABELARDO RAMOS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
OSTRAND, J.:
Crisanto Evangelista and Abelardo Ramos, were charged in the Court of First
Instance of Manila with a violation of section 8 of Act No. 292, as amended.
Upon trial the court below found the accused guilty and sentenced each of them
to six months’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of P400 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and each of the accused to pay one-half of
the costs. Thereupon the defendants appealed to this court.
The acts which gave rise to this accusation were as follows: On the first day
of May, 1931, a parade was to be held by the communists in the municipality of
Caloocati, within two and a half miles of the city limits of Manila, but as the
permit for the parade had been revoked, a Constabulary officer appeared with his
soldiers at the place to prevent the holding of the parade. The appellant,
Crisanto Evangelista, who apparently was the leader of the people therein
assembled to take part in the parade, held a conversation with the Constabulary
officer about the permit and its revocation, after which Evangelista was allowed
by the Constabulary officer to say a few words to the people for the purpose of
informing them that the parade could not be held and that they should retire.
But instead of telling the people to retire, he raised his fist, which the
people approved by shouting “mabuhay”, and then said: “Comrades or brethren, the
municipal president, Mr. Aquino, has allowed us to hold the parade, but for
reason unknown to me, the permit has been revoked. This shows that the big ones
are persecuting and oppressing us, who are small, which they have no right to
do.” Then shouts were heard from’ the audience saying, “Let us fight them”. The
accused Abelardo Ramos, who was among the people, shouted “Let us fight them
until death”. Evangelista proceeded saying, “My heart bleeds”, but could not
continue because the officer stopped him and placed them both, Crisanto
Evangelista and Abelardo Ramos, under arrest. Thereupon the mass began to
advance against the Constabulary officer and soldiers, in an attempt to wrest
Evangelista from the Constabulary and to continue the parade, but the soldiers
made use of a water pump and dispersed them. There were found on the body of
Crisanto Evangelista the permit issued by the municipal president and its
revocation.
The appellants testified denying having said the words above quoted and
attributed to them. They further claimed that the people were peaceful, but the
trial court found the facts as above stated, and the appellants’ brief does not
point out any data or reason why the finding of the trial court should not be
upheld.
Under the circumstances of the case, the statements made by the accused on
the occasion above related are clearly seditious. It must be noted that the
disorder took place on May 1, 1931, that is, several months after the
inauguration of the Communist Party and after the communists had already filled
the minds of their followers with their revolting ideas in several meetings.
That the said utterances were really inciting the people to revolt, is shown by
the fact that the mass, not only shouted a protest against the officers of the
law, but did actually advance against them, and the latter had to use force in
order to enforce the law. The defense arguing upon the authority of United
States vs. Apurado (7 Phil., 422), maintains that there is no sedition here,
because a mere disorder is not sedition, but the comparison is inadmissible. In
the Apurado case, the people assembled at the chamber of the municipal council
to ask for the removal of the municipal treasurer on account of religious
differences. This court did not find any disorder in that case. It was a
petition for redress of grievances made in more or less excited language, but
the affair on the whole was peaceful and orderly; whereas in the instant case,
there was an inducement to fight, an actual though unexpected fight and
resistance against the authorities. It was simply the practical expression and
repetition of the previous instigations to overthrow the government, made by the
communist leaders before.
For these reasons and those given in cases G. R. Nos. 36275[1] and 36276,[2] the judgment appealed, from will be affirmed
with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Villa-Real, Hull, Vickers,
and Imperial, JJ., concur.
[1]People vs. Evangelista, page 354, ante.
[2]People vs. Capadocia, page 364, ante.