Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 384 views

    People V Cabrera

    Uploaded by

    zusmitha
    1) Several members of the Philippine Constabulary launched attacks against Manila police in response to prior events, leading to charges of sedition against the participants. 2) During the attacks, Constabulary soldiers fired upon and killed several policemen as well as civilian bystanders. They also fired indiscriminately at a police station. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the accused soldiers were guilty of sedition as defined in Philippine law, rejecting the argument that sedition requires a private citizen offender against a public official. Sedition includes acts to inflict revenge on government officials.

    Copyright:

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

    People V Cabrera

    Uploaded by

    zusmitha
    384 views2 pages
    1) Several members of the Philippine Constabulary launched attacks against Manila police in response to prior events, leading to charges of sedition against the participants. 2) During the attacks, Constabulary soldiers fired upon and killed several policemen as well as civilian bystanders. They also fired indiscriminately at a police station. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the accused soldiers were guilty of sedition as defined in Philippine law, rejecting the argument that sedition requires a private citizen offender against a public official. Sedition includes acts to inflict revenge on government officials.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    People v Cabrera

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Several members of the Philippine Constabulary launched attacks against Manila police in response to prior events, leading to charges of sedition against the participants. 2) During the attacks, Constabulary soldiers fired upon and killed several policemen as well as civilian bystanders. They also fired indiscriminately at a police station. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the accused soldiers were guilty of sedition as defined in Philippine law, rejecting the argument that sedition requires a private citizen offender against a public official. Sedition includes acts to inflict revenge on government officials.

    Copyright:

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

    People V Cabrera

    Uploaded by

    zusmitha
    1) Several members of the Philippine Constabulary launched attacks against Manila police in response to prior events, leading to charges of sedition against the participants. 2) During the attacks, Constabulary soldiers fired upon and killed several policemen as well as civilian bystanders. They also fired indiscriminately at a police station. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the accused soldiers were guilty of sedition as defined in Philippine law, rejecting the argument that sedition requires a private citizen offender against a public official. Sedition includes acts to inflict revenge on government officials.

    Copyright:

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

    People v.

    Cabrera

    G.R. No. 17748, March 4, 1922

    Facts: As one outcome of the tumultous uprising of certain members of the Philippine
    Constabulary to inflict revenge upon the police of the city of Manila, charges of sedition against
    the participants in the public disturbance.

    On December 13, 1920, policemen of the city of Manila arrested a woman who was a member
    of the household of a Constabulary soldier stationed at the Sta. Lucia Barracks. One day,
    policeman Mojica was patrolling when he encountered various Constabulary soldiers which
    resulted in the shooting of private Macasinag of the Constabulary. Resentment among soldiers
    in Sta Lucia Barracks ensued and rumors spread out that Mojica was allowed to continue his
    dutyin Intramuros and that Macasinag died. On December 15, 1920, Corporal Ingles persuaded
    a private in charge of a quarter to be let out of the window. They sawed out the window bars
    and brought rifles and ammunition. They divided to attack the police officers.

    On Calle Real, One platoon of Constabulary soldiers apparently numbering about ten or
    twelve fired two policemen and subsequently fired shot against a civilian car, killing the
    driver and three passengers. They also killed the assistant chief of police as well as the
    policeman who was driving the motorcycle. A police patrol went to the place and was
    also gunned down by the soldiers which resulted to two deaths. On Calle General Luna
    also, another platoon of soldiers fired upon a police motorcycle on its way to Calle Real,
    wounding one. They also fired indiscriminately in one police station, where no one was
    harmed. Chief of the Constabulary rounded up the soldiers, who then came back to the
    barracks. No list of the soldiers was released but an investigation was made wherein it
    was found out that there were around 74 soldiers who participated. According to one
    soldier, the wife of a soldier was arrested and abused by the policemen, after which
    they gave her to an American, then the unjustified arrest of 2 soldiers, and then the
    killing of the soldier Macasinag.

    Issue: Are the accused soldiers committed treason?

    Ruling: Yes. Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising of commotions or disturbances in
    the State. The Philippine law on the subject (Act No. 292) makes all persons guilty of sedition
    who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of legal methods any
    one of vie objects, including that of inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or
    property of any official or agent of the Insular Government or of Provincial or Municipal
    Government.

    Defendants’ argument: For the crime of sedition to be committed, there should be a private
    citizen as offender and a public functionary as offended party, and what transpired was a fight
    between two government bodies.

    The Supreme Court held that Subdivison 3 of section 5 of the Treason and Sedition Law makes
    no distinction between the persons to which it applies and what transpired was an unequal
    fight.
    ART. 139. Sedition - How committed. - The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise
    publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of
    legal methods, any of the following objects:

    1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular
    election;
    2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government, or any
    public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution
    of any administrative order;
    3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or
    employee;
    4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private
    persons or any social class; and
    5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the
    National Government of all its property or any party thereof.

    You might also like