EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1451. March 6, 1906.]

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AURELIO

TOLENTINO, defendant-appellant.

Rafael Palma and Gibbs & Kincaid, for appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; INFORMATION; PLEADING AND PRACTICE.

— The rule quoted in the case of United States vs. Dorr and O'Brien, decided
May 19, 1903, that it is a "well-settled rule in considering indictments that
where an offense maybe committed in any of several modes, and the
offense, in any particular instance is alleged to have been committed into or
more modes specified, it is sufficient to prove the offense committed in any
one of them, provided that it be such as to constitute the substantive
offense," is reaffirmed.

DECISION

CARSON, J : p

Aurelio Tolentino, the appellant in this case, was convicted upon an

information charging him with the crime of "uttering seditious words and
writings, publishing and circulating scurrilous libels against the Government
of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands,
committed as follows: That said Aurelio Tolentino, on or about the 14th day
of May, 1903, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, did unlawfully utter
seditious words and speeches and did write, publish, and circulate scurrilous
libels against the Government of the United States and the Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands, which tend to obstruct the lawful
officers of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine
Islands in the execution of their offices, and which tend to instigate others to
cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, and which suggest and
incite rebellious conspiracies and riots, and which tend 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 of the United States and the Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands, which said seditious words and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 speeches are false and inflammatory, and tend to incite and move the
people to hatred and dislike of the government established by law within the
Philippine Islands, and tend to incite, move, and persuade great numbers of
the people of said Philippine Islands to insurrection, riots, tumults, and
breaches of the public peace; which said false, seditious, and inflammatory
words and scurrilous libels are in the Tagalog language in a theatrical work
written by said Aurelio Tolentino, and which was presented by him and
others on the said 14th day of May, 1903, at the "Teatro Libertad," in the city
of Manila, Philippine Islands, entitled 'Kahapon Ngayon at Bukas' (Yesterday
To-day and To-morrow). An exact translation of the said drama is included in
the information, and various parts thereof are specially assigned, which in
the opinion of the prosecution, were more especially in violation of the
statute in such cases made and provided.
It was proven at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused
did in fact write the drama and the announcement thereof, substantially as
set out in the information, and did, with other members of a theatrical
company, of which he was director, utter and publish the same substantially
in manner and form as charged, and as we understand it, the only question
for decision is whether, in writing, publishing, and uttering the drama, the
accused was in fact guilty of a violation of section 8 of Act No. 292 of the
Philippine Commission, upon which the information was based.
This section is as follows:
"Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write,
publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the
United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or
which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his
office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for
unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or
riots, or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities
or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the
Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices, shall
be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by
imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the
court."
Counsel discussed at some length the question whether the drama or
any part of it was of a "scurrilous" nature in the legal acceptation of the
word, but for the purposes of this decision we do not deem it necessary to
make a finding on this point. In the case of the United States vs. Fred L. Dorr
and Edward F. O'Brien, 1 decided May 19, 1903, this court said:
"The complaint appears to be framed upon the theory that a
writing, in order to be punishable as a libel under this section, must be
of a scurrilous nature and directed against the Government of the
United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, and
must, in addition, tend to some one of the results enumerated in the
section, the article in question being described in the complaint as 'a
scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and the
Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, which tends ti obstruct
the lawful officers of the United States and the Insular Government of
the Philippine Islands in the execution of their offices, and which tends
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes,
and which suggests and incites rebellious conspiracies, and which
tends to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, and which
disturbs the safety and order of the Government of the United States
and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands.' But it is a well-
settled rule in considering indictments that where an offense may be
committed in any of several different modes, and the offense, in any
particular instance, is alleged to have been committed in two or more
modes specified, it is sufficient to prove the offense committed in any
one ]of them, provided that it be such as to constitute the substantive
offense.' (Com. vs. Kneeland, 20 Pick, Mass. 206, 215), and the
defendants may, therefore, be convicted if any one of the substantive
charges into which the complaint may be separated has been made
out."
"Several allied offense or modes of committing the same offense
are defined in that sections, viz: (1) The uttering of seditious words or
speeches; (2) the writing, publishing, or circulating of scurrilous libels
against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government
of the Philippine Islands; (3) the writing, publishing, or circulating of
libels which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing
his office; (4) or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet
together for unlawful purposes; (5) or which suggest or incite rebellious
conspiracies or riots; (6) or which tend to stir up the people against the
lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety
and order of the Government; (7) knowingly concealing such evil
practices."
In accordance with the principles laid down in the preceding paragraph
the judgment of conviction in this case must be sustained, if it appears from
the evidence in the record that the accused was guilty as charged of any one
of these offenses.
We are all agreed that the publication and presentation of the drama
directly and necessarily tended 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.
Counsel for the appellant insists that the intend 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 artistic
production wherein the legendary history of these Islands and their future,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 as imagined by the author, are presented merely for the instruction and
entertainment of the public.
This contention can not be maintained. The public presentation of the
drama took place in the month of May, 1903, less than two years after the
establishment of the Civil Government. The smouldering embers of a
widespread and dangerous insurrection were not yet entirely extinguished,
and here and there throughout the Islands occasional outbreaks still required
the use of the armed forces of the Government for their suppression. A junta
in the city of Hongkong, composed of persons whose announced purpose
and object in organizing was the overthrow of the present Government, was
actively engaged in the endeavor to keep the people of these Islands from
peaceably accepting the authority of that Government, and this junta, acting
with confederates in the Philippines, was still able to keep alive a certain
spirit of unrest and uncertainty which it hoped to fan into open revolt and
rebellion at the first favorable opportunity.
The manner and form in which the drama was presented at such a
time and under such conditions, renders absurd the pretense that it was
merely or even principally a literary or artistic production, and the clumsy
devices, the allegorical figures, the apparent remoteness, past and future, of
the events portrayed, could not and in fact were not intended to leave the
audience in doubt as to its present and immediate application, nor should
they blind this court to the true purpose and intent of the author and director
of the play.

It is further contended that even though the accused were in fact guilty
as charged, the court erred in imposing an excessive and unjust penalty, and
in fixing the amount of the fine in dollars instead of Philippine currency. As to
the latter objection it is sufficient to say that the use of the word "dollars"
was in strict conformance with the words of the statute, and that the
equivalent of that word in Philippine currency is fixed by law. The penalty
was within the limits prescribed by law, and we are not prepared to hold that
the trial erred in the exercise of its discretion in imposing it.
The judgment and sentence appealed from is affirmed with the costs
against the appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. 2 Phil. Rep., 332.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com