Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

Inciting to Sedition

On 14 May 1903, Aurelio Tolentino and others presented a theatrical
work written by the former entitled, Kahapon Ngayon at Bukas in Tagalog
language at the Teatro Libertad in Manila. The piece contained seditious
words and speeches, and scurrilous libels against the Government of the US
and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands which were uttered
during the presentation as if tending to obstruct the lawful officers in the
execution of their offices, instigate others to cabal and meet together for
unlawful purposes, suggest and incite rebellious conspiracies and riots and
disturb the peace, safety and order of the community.
Whether or not the theatrical performance of Tolentino were acts of
inciting to sedition.
YES. The theatrical performance of Tolentino were acts of inciting to
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.

Delivery of Prisoners from Jail

G.R. No. L-31839
98 SCRA 406
June 30, 1980

This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of the
respondent Judge directing petitioners to amend the information filed in
Criminal Case No. 9414 of the CFI of Camarines Sur entitled, People of the
Philippines versus Eligio Orbita, so as to include as defendants Governor
Armando Cledera and Assistant Provincial Warden Jose Esmeralda of
Camarines Sur. In said case, Orbita, a provincial guard, was prosecuted for
infidelity in the custody of a prisoner for the escape of detention prisoner,
Pablo Denaque. In the course of the trial, the defense alleged that Esmeralda
received a written note from Gov. Cledera asking him to send in five
prisoners which party included Denaque, who was then under the custody of
Orbita, to his house in Taculod, Canaman, Camarines Sur to work in the
construction which made Denaques escape possible, and thus, Esmeralda
and Gov. Cledera should be equally guilty of the offense with Orbita.
Whether or not respondent Judge erred in equally incriminating Gov.
Cledera and Esmeralda with Orbita for the escape of Pablo Denaque.
YES. Respondent Judge erred in equally incriminating Gov. Cledera and
Esmeralda with Orbita for the escape of Pablo Denaque. Decision annulled
and set aside. Respondent Judge directed to proceed with the trial of the
The offense of delivering prisoners from jails as defined in Article 156 is
usually committed by an outsider who: (1) removes from jail any person
therein confined or (2) helps him escape. If the offender is a public officer
who has custody or charge of the prisoner, he is liable for infidelity in
the custody of prisoners defined and penalized under Article 223 of the
Revised Penal Code. Since Gov. Cledera as governor, is the jailer of the
province and Jose Esmeralda is the assistant provincial warden, they cannot
be prosecuted for the escape of Pablo Denaque under Article 156 of the
Revised Penal Code. There is likewise no sufficient evidence to warrant their
prosecution for conniving with or consenting to evasion under Art. 223, and
Art. 224 which punishes evasion through negligence.

Evasion of service of sentence

Petitioner Adelaida Tanega appealed her conviction of the crime of slander to
the City Court of Quezon City. Found guilty once again by the CFI, she was
sentenced to suffer 20 days of arresto menor. The CA affirmed her
conviction. The City Court of Quezon City directed that the execution of the
sentence be set for 27 January 1965. On petitioners motion, execution was
deferred to 12 February 1965 at 8:30 am. At the appointed day and hour,
petitioner failed to appear prompting Respondent Judge Masakayan to issue
warrants for her arrest but the former was never arrested. More than a year
later, Petitioner moved to quash the warrants on the ground of prescription
of penalty but such plea was rejected and Respondent Judge issued another
warrant of arrest.
Whether or not the penalty has prescribed.
No. The penalty has not prescribed. Petition dismissed.
By Article 92 of the Revised Penal Code, light penalties "imposed by final
sentence" prescribe in one year. The period of prescription of penalties so
the succeeding Article 93 provides "shall commence to run from the date
when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence". Under Art. 157 of
the RPC, the elements of evasion of service of sentence are: (1) the offender
is a convict by final judgment; (2) he "is serving his sentence which consists
in deprivation of liberty"; and (3) he evades service of sentence by escaping
during the term of his sentence. This must be so. For, by the express terms
of the statute, a convict evades "service of his sentence", by "escaping
during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment." Indeed,
evasion of sentence is but another expression of the term "jail breaking". For
prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence to
commence to run, the culprit should escape during the term of such
imprisonment. Adverting to the facts, we have here the case of a convict

who sentenced to imprisonment by final judgment was thereafter never

placed in confinement. Prescription of penalty, then, does not run in her