People v. Feleo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 29, 1932, during a public meeting held by the legislative committee on labor in San Miguel, Bulacan, to hear farmers' grievances, the appellant, Juan Feleo, delivered a speech in Tagalog. In his speech, Feleo stated, among other things, that "it is necessary that we should all unite to overthrow that power," that "A soviet government is necessary here," and that "It is necessary that all property should be delivered to the government for its administration." Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Bulacan found the appellant, Juan Feleo, guilty of inciting sedition in violation of article 142 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. A demurrer to the information, alleging that no offense was charged, was overruled. The Petition: The appellant brought this appeal to reverse the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the language used by the appellant constituted inciting sedition under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the appellant's speech was protected by constitutional guaranties.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, holding the appellant guilty of inciting sedition. The penalty imposed by the trial court was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the language used constituted inciting sedition: The Court found that the sentiments expressed by the appellant, particularly the call to "unite to overthrow that power" and the advocacy for a "soviet government" where "all property should be delivered to the government for its administration," were clearly directed to the end of inciting sedition. The Court reasoned that sedition, as defined in Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code, includes preventing the Insular Government or any public officer from freely exercising its or his functions. The language imputed to the appellant incites the auditors to the overthrowing of the lawmaking power, and as the greater includes the less, this language necessarily involves preventing the Government and public officials from freely exercising their functions. The prosecution's proof fully sustained the allegation that these sentiments were expressed by the speaker. On whether the appellant's speech was protected by constitutional guaranties: The Court held that the contention that the language used was within the privilege secured by constitutional guaranties is untenable. The Court reiterated its previous rulings that speeches of the character of the one delivered by the appellant are not protected by constitutional guaranties. The Court cited previous decisions, including People vs. Feleo (57 Phil., 451), People vs. Feleo (G.R. Nos. 36427 and 36428, 57 Phil., 990), People vs. Nabong (57 Phil., 455), and People vs. Evangelista (57 Phil., 354), to support its position that such incitement to overthrow the government is not a protected form of speech.
Main Doctrine
The language used by the accused, which incites the auditors to the overthrowing of the lawmaking power, necessarily involves preventing the Government and public officials from freely exercising their functions, and such language is not protected by constitutional guaranties.