Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    US V Tolentino Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Meku Dige
    The document discusses a case where a man was charged with inciting sedition through a play he wrote and presented in a theater. The lower court found him guilty. The issues are whether writing, publishing and presenting the play constituted the crime of inciting sedition. The Supreme Court agreed the play directly encouraged unlawful gatherings and rebellion, stirring people against authorities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    US V Tolentino Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Meku Dige
    6 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case where a man was charged with inciting sedition through a play he wrote and presented in a theater. The lower court found him guilty. The issues are whether writing, publishing and presenting the play constituted the crime of inciting sedition. The Supreme Court agreed the play directly encouraged unlawful gatherings and rebellion, stirring people against authorities.

    Original Title

    US v Tolentino Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where a man was charged with inciting sedition through a play he wrote and presented in a theater. The lower court found him guilty. The issues are whether writing, publishing and presenting the play constituted the crime of inciting sedition. The Supreme Court agreed the play directly encouraged unlawful gatherings and rebellion, stirring people against authorities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    6 views2 pages

    US V Tolentino Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Meku Dige
    The document discusses a case where a man was charged with inciting sedition through a play he wrote and presented in a theater. The lower court found him guilty. The issues are whether writing, publishing and presenting the play constituted the crime of inciting sedition. The Supreme Court agreed the play directly encouraged unlawful gatherings and rebellion, stirring people against authorities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    On or about May 14, 1903, Aurelio Tolentino and others presented the theatrical work entitled

    “Kahapon, Ngayon at Bukas" written by the defendant-appellant at the Teatro Libertad, in the city of
    Manila. It was alleged that the said theatrical work was equipped with seditious words and speeches
    and 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. That such words and speeches are false and inflammatory, and
    tend to incite and move the people to hatred and dislike towards the government and persuade great
    numbers of the people of Philippine Islands to commit insurrection, riots, tumults and breaches of
    public peace.

    The lower court held the appellant guilty of a violation of section 8 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine
    Commission which penalizes any person who commits acts which constitute the crime of inciting to
    sedition.

    Issue:

    WoN in writing, publishing, and uttering the drama, the accused was in fact guilty of the crime of inciting
    to sedition.

    Ruling:

    It appears from the evidence in the record that the accused was guilty as charged of any one of these
    offenses.

    Under Sec. 8 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, several allied offense or modes of committing
    the same offense are defined,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."

    The Supreme Court 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.

    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.

    You might also like