The United States vs. Maximino Planas

An objection to the sufficiency of a criminal complaint not raised in the court below is waived and cannot be considered for the first time on appeal; where the evidence supports the trial court’s findings, a conviction for conspiring to commit sedition will be affirmed.

Maximino Planas held the office of municipal president of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, and was charged by the United States with conspiring to commit sedition. The prosecution was tried before Judge Richard Campbell, and the penalty was imposed under Section 7 of Act No. 292.

Maximino Planas was the duly elected, qualified, and acting president of the town of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, during the dates mentioned in the complaint. On or about September 1, 1910, the United States charged him with conspiring to rise publicly and tumultuously to attain by force or outside legal methods the infliction of acts of hate or revenge upon officials or agents of the Insular Government, the provincial government of Nueva Vizcaya, and the municipal government of Bambang; the infliction, with a political or social object, of acts of hate or revenge upon certain individuals or classes; the despoliation, with a political or social object, of certain classes of persons and property; and with uttering seditious words tending to instigate others to cabal or meet for unlawful purposes, suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies, stir up the people against lawful authorities, disturb the peace and safety and order of the Government, and knowingly conceal such evil practices. He was arrested, arraigned, and pleaded not guilty.

At trial, the prosecution presented four policemen of Bambang—Pantaleon Pugayan, Pedro Sierra, Santiago Angela, and Emeterio Marquez—three councilmen—Proceso Sierra, Martin Apno, and Angel Malanoy—municipal treasurer Ventura Bernal, and his clerk Martiniano Mirralles. According to the prosecution, on September 3, 1910, Planas called together the policemen of Bambang and told them that the insurrectos had entered Solano, seized money from the treasury, burned the papers, and made prisoners of the padres. He ordered them to bring their arms to his house so that he could deliver them to the insurrectos when they reached Bambang, and to be ready to join the insurrectos, saying that he was captain of the insurrectos and that when they came they would kill the Americans Bennett and Scott and the Romanista padre and burn the convent. He warned them not to tell the Americans, or the insurrectos would kill them when they came.

On September 4, 1910, between 9 and 10 o’clock, the councilmen of Bambang assembled at the presidencia in obedience to a call or bandillo published the previous evening by Planas. Present were councilmen Proceso Sierra, Martin Apno, Marcelino Alvarez, Angel Malonoy, Santiago Corales, and Francisco Pugayan, together with President Planas. Planas told the assembled councilmen that the insurrectos had entered Solano, seized the municipal funds, burned the papers, and made prisoners of the Romanista padres. He instructed them to prepare their people with arms, bolos, spears, and arrows, and to be ready to join the insurrectos when they arrived in Bambang, after which they would kill the Americans Bennett and Scott and the Romanista padre. The prosecution also showed that on September 2, 1910, at the house of councilman Martin Apno, Planas told Apno about the events in Solano and directed him to prepare bolos, lances, and other arms and to be ready to join the insurrectos, after which they would kill Bennett, Scott, and the Roman padre of Bambang.

The policemen testified that they assembled, four in number, at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon in the presidencia of Bambang by order of Planas on September 3, 1910, and that Planas told them to deliver their arms to his house because he was a captain of the insurrectos and would deliver the arms to the insurrectos when they entered Bambang. He also told them that the insurrectos had already entered Solano, seized the municipal funds, and burned the papers, and that when they reached Bambang the policemen should be ready to join them and would then kill Bennett and Scott and the Roman padre and burn the convent. On September 4, when six councilmen assembled in the presidencia in obedience to his order, Planas repeated substantially the same conversation. He told the councilmen to prepare their people with arms of all kinds, bolos, lances, and arrows, and to be ready to join the insurrectos when they reached Bambang, after which they would kill the Americans Scott and Bennett and the Romanista padre and burn the convent. He also told them that the insurrectos had already entered Solano, seized the municipal funds, and burned the papers, and that when they entered Bambang the councilmen and their people would hear the salvos of the police at the presidencia as the signal to join forces with the insurrectos.

The trial court, after seeing and hearing the witnesses and considering all the evidence, found these facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It found that an uprising took place in and about Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, on September 1, 1910, having for its object the overthrow of the Government of the Philippine Islands and the provincial and municipal governments of Nueva Vizcaya and other provinces. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, agreed that the lower court’s findings were in accordance with the evidence and showed Planas guilty of the crime charged beyond peradventure of doubt.

• Defective Complaint: Maximino Planas, defendant-appellant, assigned as error that the court erred in not dismissing the case because the complaint was defective.
• Insufficiency of Evidence: He assigned as error that the court erred in finding that the evidence introduced at trial by the prosecution justified his conviction.
• Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: He assigned as error that the court erred in not acquitting him because his guilt was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

• Defective Complaint: Whether the complaint was defective and should have been dismissed, even though no objection to its sufficiency was made in the court below.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the evidence introduced by the prosecution justified the conviction of Maximino Planas.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the guilt of Maximino Planas was proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

• Defective Complaint: No. The sufficiency of the complaint cannot be questioned for the first time on appeal where no objection was made in the court below.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The evidence introduced by the prosecution justified the conviction; the trial court’s findings were supported by the evidence.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. The evidence showed the defendant guilty of the crime charged beyond peradventure of doubt.

• Defective Complaint: The Court noted that no objection whatsoever was made in the court below with reference to the sufficiency of the complaint. It cited numerous decisions holding that when no objection is made to the sufficiency of the complaint in the court below, the objection will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Because Planas raised the alleged defect only on appeal, the first assignment of error was rejected.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court observed that many witnesses were presented by both the government and the defendant, and that the facts bore a close relation to U.S. vs. Mandac (No. 6763) and U.S. vs. Isidro Olaño (No. 6882). The trial judge, after seeing and hearing the witnesses and considering all the evidence, found proven beyond reasonable doubt that Planas, as municipal president, summoned the policemen and councilmen and urged them to bring arms to his house, prepare for the arrival of the insurrectos, join them, and kill Americans Bennett and Scott and the Romanista padre and burn the convent. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found the lower court’s findings in accordance with the evidence, showing guilt beyond peradventure of doubt. The sentence was in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 292.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The same evidence—the testimony of four policemen, three councilmen, the municipal treasurer, and his clerk—established the acts charged. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses and concluded that guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the conviction was affirmed.

• Waiver of Objection to Sufficiency of Complaint — An objection to the sufficiency of a criminal complaint not made in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court applied this rule to reject Planas’s first assignment of error because he did not object to the complaint in the trial court.
• Appellate Review of Sufficiency of Evidence — Where the trial court has seen and heard the witnesses and its findings are supported by the evidence, the Supreme Court will not disturb the conviction; guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reviewed the record and found the findings in accordance with the evidence, showing Planas guilty beyond peradventure of doubt.
• Conspiracy to Commit Sedition — The Court affirmed a conviction for conspiring to commit sedition where the accused, a municipal president, urged policemen and councilmen to prepare arms, join the insurrectos, and kill named Americans and a Romanista padre and burn a convent. The evidence was found sufficient to establish the crime charged.

• "This court has held in many decisions that when no objection is made to the sufficiency of the complaint in the court below, the objection will not be considered for the first time on appeal." — States the ratio for rejecting the first assignment of error and establishes the waiver rule applied to the defective-complaint issue.
• "After a careful reading of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause and brought to this court, we are of the opinion that the findings of fact made by the lower court are in accordance with such evidence, and show that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged beyond peradventure of doubt, and that the sentence imposed by the lower court is in accordance with the law. (Sec. 7, Act No. 292.)" — States the Court’s standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence and the basis for affirming the conviction and sentence.
• "Prepare your people with arms, bolos, spears, and arrows, and when the insurrectos arrive in this town be ready to join them, then we will kill the Americans Bennett and Scott and the Romanista padre," or words to that effect. — Records the trial court’s finding of Planas’s statement to the councilmen, which formed central evidence of the conspiracy and sedition charge.

• U.S. vs. Mabanag, 1 Phil. Rep., 441 — Cited, together with U.S. vs. Cajayon, U.S. vs. Mack, U.S. vs. Sarabia, Mortiga vs. Serra, U.S. vs. Paraiso, U.S. vs. Aldos, U.S. vs. Eusebio, U.S. vs. Flores, and U.S. vs. Lampano, as controlling precedent for the rule that objections to the sufficiency of the complaint not raised below are waived on appeal.
• U.S. vs. Mandac, No. 6763 — Cited as a related case whose facts bear a very close relation to the present case.
• U.S. vs. Isidro Olaño, No. 6882 — Cited as a related case whose facts bear a very close relation to the present case.

• Section 7, Act No. 292 — Cited by the Court in affirming the sentence, which it found to be in accordance with the law. The provision supplied the statutory basis for the penalty imposed on Planas.

Arellano, C.J., and Justices Torres, Carson, Moreland, and Trent concurred.