United States vs. Aurelio Tolentino

Where a penal statute enumerates several distinct modes of committing an offense and the information charges the accused with two or more of those modes, proof of the commission of any one mode suffices for conviction, provided it constitutes the substantive offense. Further, a theatrical performance that, by reason of its content and the circumstances of its presentation, tends to incite rebellion and disturb public order may be punished as seditious utterance and libel.

Less than two years after the establishment of civil government in the Philippine Islands, remnants of the Philippine insurrection against American rule still smouldered, and a junta in Hong Kong actively worked to keep unrest alive and to incite renewed rebellion. Aurelio Tolentino, a writer and director, staged the Tagalog-language play “Kahapon Ngayon at Bukas” (Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow) at the Teatro Libertad in Manila on or about 14 May 1903.

• The Information: Tolentino was accused of writing, publishing, and uttering seditious words and speeches, and of publishing and circulating scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States and the Insular Government. The information alleged that the seditious matter was contained in a Tagalog-language dramatic work entitled “Kahapon Ngayon at Bukas,” which he wrote and directed, and which was presented at the Teatro Libertad on 14 May 1903. An exact translation of the drama and specific passages were incorporated as part of the charge.
• The Evidence at Trial: The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Tolentino wrote the drama and its announcement, and that he, together with a theatrical company of which he was director, uttered and published it substantially as charged.
• Context and Tendency: The drama was presented in May 1903, less than two years after civil government was inaugurated. Embers of a widespread insurrection were not yet extinguished; armed forces were still needed to suppress sporadic outbreaks. A junta in Hong Kong, composed of persons whose avowed object was the overthrow of the existing government, actively sought to keep the people from accepting American authority and hoped to fan unrest into open revolt. The play employed allegorical figures and events of apparent remoteness, but the manner and form of presentation were such that the audience could not doubt its immediate and seditious application. The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play was to inculcate hatred against the American people and the Government of the United States in the Philippines, and its principal object was to incite the people to open and armed resistance, and to induce them to conspire for the secret organization of armed forces to overthrow the government at an opportune moment.
• Defense Claim: Tolentino maintained that the drama was a purely artistic and literary production, presented merely for the instruction and entertainment of the public, and that the intent to commit the crime charged did not appear.

• Pleading and Proof of Multiple Modes: Whether, under an information charging several modes of violating section 8 of Act No. 292, proof of the commission of any one mode suffices to sustain a conviction.
• Sufficiency of the Evidence of Sedition: Whether the writing and presentation of the drama “Kahapon Ngayon at Bukas,” considering its content and the circumstances of its performance, constituted a violation of the statute despite the claim that it was an artistic work without seditious intent.
• Propriety of the Penalty: Whether the trial court erred in imposing an excessive penalty and in fixing the fine in dollars rather than in Philippine currency.

• Pleading and Proof of Multiple Modes: Under the well-settled rule reaffirmed in United States v. Dorr and O’Brien, where an offense may be committed in several modes and the information charges it in two or more modes, proof of any one mode suffices to support a conviction, provided that proof establishes the substantive offense. Section 8 of Act No. 292 defines several allied offenses or modes of commission, including the uttering of seditious words, the publishing of libels that tend to instigate cabals, and libels that suggest rebellious conspiracies. Consequently, the conviction could be sustained even without a finding that the drama was “scurrilous,” because the evidence established that it tended to instigate cabals and incite rebellion.
• Sufficiency of the Evidence of Sedition: The publication and presentation of the drama directly and necessarily tended to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, to suggest and incite rebellious conspiracies and riots, and to stir up the people against lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of the community and the safety and order of the Government. The manifest 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 United States Government in the Philippines. The principal object and intent of the author was to incite the people to open and armed resistance and to induce them to conspire for the secret organization of armed forces to overthrow the government. The pretense that the drama was merely or principally a literary or artistic production was rendered absurd by the circumstances—the smouldering insurrection, the active Hong Kong junta, and the transparently seditious allegory of the play.
• Propriety of the Penalty: The statute prescribed the fine in “dollars”; its equivalent in Philippine currency was fixed by law. The penalty imposed fell within the limits authorized by Act No. 292, and no abuse of discretion was shown.

• Multiple Modes of Offense — Sufficiency of Proof — Where a criminal statute defines several distinct modes by which an offense may be committed, and an information charges the accused in two or more of those modes, the prosecution need only prove the commission of the offense in any one of the modes alleged; proof of that single mode is enough to sustain the conviction, so long as it constitutes the substantive offense defined by law.
• Seditious Tendency — Objective Test — The criminal character of a publication or utterance for sedition purposes is determined by its natural and probable tendency, evaluated in light of the time, place, and manner of its dissemination. A claim of purely artistic or literary purpose does not shield the author where the objective tendency of the work is to instigate rebellion, stir up hatred against the lawful authorities, or disturb public order.

• “It is a well-settled rule in considering indictments that where an offense may be committed in any of several different modes, and the offense, in any particular instance, is alleged to have been committed in two or more modes specified, it is sufficient to prove the offense committed in any one of them, provided that it be such as to constitute the substantive offense.”
• “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.”

• United States v. Dorr and O’Brien, 2 Phil. Rep. 332 (1903) — Followed; the Court expressly reaffirmed and applied the rule on multiple modes of offense announced in that decision.
• Commonwealth v. Kneeland, 20 Pick. 206 (Mass. 1838) — Cited with approval as authority for the same rule that proof of one mode charged suffices for conviction.

• Section 8, Act No. 292 (Philippine Commission) — Enumerates the punishable acts, including uttering seditious words, writing or publishing scurrilous libels against the government, and publishing libels that tend to instigate cabals, suggest rebellious conspiracies, or stir up the people against lawful authorities. The provision supplied the substantive definition of the crime and the penalty range within which the trial court imposed the fine and imprisonment.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Willard, JJ., concurred.