[No. 18463. October 4, 1922] 5.ID.; ID.; ID.

All those provisions of the Spanish Penal Code having to do

with such subjects as treason, lse majest, religion and worship, rebellion,
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and appellee, vs.
sedition, and contempts of ministers of the crown, are no longer in force.
GREGORIO PERFECTO, defendant and appellant.
Article 255 of the Penal Code is of a similar nature.
1.DEFAMATION, ABUSE, OR INSULT OF A MINISTER OF THE CROWN OR
6.ID.; ID.; ID.It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition
OTHER PERSON IN AUTHORITY; ARTICLE 256 OF THE PENAL CODE,
of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally
WHETHER IN FORCE; EFFECT OF THE LlBEL LAW ON ARTICLE 256.Article
abrogated. "It cannot be admitted that the King of Spain could, by treaty
256 of the Penal Code punishes "Any person who, by * * * writing, shall
or otherwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives; and
defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in
much less can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive or power
authority." The Philippine Libel Law, Act No. 277, has had the effect of
to exercise them. Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise,
repealing so much. of article 256 of the Penal Code as relates to written
must hold it subject to the constitution and laws of its own government,
defamation, abuse, or insult.
and not according to those of the government ceding it." (Pollard vs. Hagan
2.ID.; ID.; ID.; LIBEL OF LEGISLATURE.While it may be proper to prosecute [1845], 3 How., 210.)
criminally the author of a libel charging a legislator with corruption,
7.ID.; ID.; ID.; NATURE OF PHILIPPINE GOVEBNMENT.The nature of the
criticisms, no matter how severe, on a legislature, are within the range of
government which has been set up in the Philippines under American
the liberty of the press, unless the intention and effect be seditious.
sovereignty was outlined by President McKinley in that Magna Charta of
3.ID.; ID.; ID.; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.Where the later statute Philippine liberty, his instructions to the Commission, of April 7, 1900. The
clearly covers the old subject-matter of antecedent acts, and it plainly President and Congress framed the government on the model with which
appears to have been the purpose of the Legislature to give expression in Americans are f amiliar and which has proven best adapted for the
it to the whole law on the subject, previous laws are held to be repealed advancement of the public interests and the protection of individual rights
by necessary implication. and privileges.

4.ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF CHANGE FROM SPANISH TO AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY 8.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted by
OVER THE PHILIPPINES ON ARTICLE 256 OF THE PENAL CODE. (OPINION OF the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the
JUSTICES MALCOLM, OSTRAND, AND JOHNS.) Article 256 of the Spanish representatives of the King. With the change of sovereignty, a new
Penal Code is not now in force because abrogated by the change from government, and a new theory of government, was set up in the
Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and because Philippines. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in
inconsistent with democratic principles of government. authority of such exalted position that the citizens must speak of him only
with bated breath. "In the eye of our Constitutions and laws, every man is

1
a sovereign, a ruler and a freeman, and has equal rights with every other
man." (State vs. Shepherd [1903], 177 Mo., 205; 99 A. S. R., 624.)
The important question is here squarely presented of whether article 256
9.ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID.In the United States, the offense of scandalum of the Spanish Penal Code, punishing "Any person who, by * * * writing,
magnatum is not known. In this country no distinction as to persons is shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in
recognized. authority * * *," is still in force.

10.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.Article 256 of the Penal Code is contrary to the genius About August 20, 1920, the Secretary of the Philippine Senate, Fernando
and fundamental principles of the American character and system of M. Guerrero, discovered that certain documents which constituted the
government. The gulf which separates this article from the spirit which records of testimony given by witnesses in the investigation of oil
inspires all penal legislation of American origin is as wide as that which companies, had disappeared from his office. Shortly thereafter, the
separates a monarchy from a democratic republic like that of the United Philippine Senate, having been called into special session by the Governor-
States. General, the Secretary of the Senate informed that body of the loss of the
documents and of the steps taken by him to discover the guilty party. The
11.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.The American system of government is calculated to
day following the convening of the Senate, September 7, 1920, the
enforce respect and obedience where such respect and obedience is due,
newspaper La, Nacion, edited by Mr. Gregorio Perfecto, published an
but never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an
article reading as follows:
official position by mandate of the people any official halo, which calls for
drastic punishment for contemptuous remarks. "Half a month has elapsed since the discovery, for the first time, of the
scandalous robbery of records which were kept and preserved in the iron
12.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.The crime of lse majest disappeared in the
safe of the Senate, yet up to this time there is not the slightest indication
Philippines with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. Ministers of the
that the author or authors of the crime will ever be discovered.
Crown have no place under the American flag.
"To find them, it would not, perhaps, be necessary to go out of the Senate
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Harvey,
itself, and the persons in charge of the investigation of the case would not
J.
have to display great skill in order to succeed in their undertaking, unless
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. they should encounter the insuperable obstacle of official concealment.

Alfonso E. Mendoza and the appellant in behalf of the latter. "In that case, every investigation to be made would be but a mere comedy
and nothing more.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee.
"After all, the perpetration of the robbery, especially under the
MALCOLM, J.: circumstances that have surrounded it, does not surprise us at all.

2
"The execution of the crime was but the natural effect of the environment representatives of the King against free speech and action by Spanish
of the place in which it was committed. subjects. A severe punishment was prescribed because it was doubtless
considered a much more serious offense to insult the King's representative
"How many of the present Senators can say without remorse in their
than to insult an ordinary individual. This provision, with almost all the
conscience and with serenity of mind, that they do not owe their victory to
other articles of that Code, was extended to the Philippine Islands when
electoral robbery? How many?
under the dominion of Spain because the King's subjects in the Philippines
"The author or authors of the robbery of the records from the said iron might defame, abuse or insult the Ministers of the Crown or other
safe of the Senate have, perhaps, but followed the example of certain representatives of His Majesty. We now have no Ministers of the Crown or
Senators who secured their election through fraud and robbery." other persons in authority in the Philippines representing the King of Spain,
and said provision, with other articles of the Penal Code, had apparently
The Philippine Senate, in its session of September $, 1920, adopted a passed into 'innocuous desuetude,' but the Supreme Court of the
resolution authorizing its committee on elections and privileges to report Philippine Islands has, by a majority decision, held that said article 256 is
as to the action which should be taken with reference to the article the law of the land to-day * * *.
published in La Nacion. On September 15, 1920, the Seriate adopted a
resolution authorizing the President of the Senate to indorse to the "The Helbig case is a precedent which, by the rule of stare decisis, is binding
Attorney-General, for his study and corresponding action, all the papers upon this court until otherwise determined by proper authority."
referring to the case of the newspaper La Nacion and its editor, Mr.
In the decision rendered by the same judge, he concluded with the
Gregorio Perfecto. As a result, an information was filed in the municipal
following language:
court of the City of Manila by an assistant 'city fiscal, in which the editorial
in question was set out and in which it was alleged that the same "In the United States such publications are usually not punishable as
constituted a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. The defendant criminal offenses, and little importance is attached to them, because they
Gregorio Perfecto was found guilty in the municipal court and again in the are generally the result of political controversy and are usually regarded as
Court of First Instance of Manila. more or less colored or exaggerated. Attacks of this character upon a
legislative body are not punishable under the Libel Law. Although such
During the course of the trial in the Court of First Instance, after the
publications are reprehensible, yet this court feels some aversion to the
prosecution had rested, the defense moved for the dismissal of the case.
application of the provision of law under which this case was filed. Our
On the subject of whether or not article 256 of the Penal Code, under which
Penal Code has come to us from the Spanish regime. Article 256 of that
the information was presented, is in force, the trial judge, the Honorable
Code prescribes punishment for persons who use insulting language about
George R. Harvey, said:
Ministers of the Crown or other 'authority.' The King of Spain doubtless felt
"This antiquated provision was doubtless incorporated into the Penal Code 4he need of such protection to his ministers and others in authority in the
of Spain for the protection of the Ministers of the Crown and other Philippines as well as in Spain. Hence, the article referred to was made

3
applicable here. Notwithstanding the change of sovereignty, our Supreme accused of his right to cross-examine a principal witness, set aside the
Court, in a majority decision, has held that this provision is still in force, and judgment affirming the judgment appealed from and ordered the return of
that one who made an insulting remark about the President of the United the record to the court of origin for the celebration of a new trial. Whether
States was punishable under it. (U. S. vs. Helbig, supra.) If it be applicable such a trial was actually had, is not known, but at least, the record in the
in that case, it would appear to be applicable in this case. Hence, said article Helbig case has never again been elevated to this court.
256 must be enforced, without fear or favor, until it shall be repealed or
There may perchance exist some doubt as to the authority of the decision
superseded by other legislation, or until the Supreme Court shall otherwise
in the Helbig case, in view of the circumstances above described. This
determine.
much, however, is certain: The facts of the Helbig case and the case b&fore
"In view of the foregoing considerations, the court finds the defendant us, which we may term. the Perfecto case, are different, for in the first case
guilty as charged in the information and under article 256' of the Penal there was an oral def amation, while in the second there is a written
Code sentences him to suffer two months and one day of arresto mayor defamation. Not only this, but a new point which, under the facts, could
and the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay the costs of both not have been considered in the Helbig case, is, in the Perfecto case, urged
instances." upon the court. And, finally, as is apparent to all, the appellate court is not
restrained, as was the trial court, by strict adherence to a former decision.
The fifteen errors assigned by the defendant and appellant, reenforced by
We much prefer to resolve the question before us unhindered by
an extensive brief, and eloquent oral argument made in his own behalf and
references to the Helbig decision.
by his learned counsel, all reduce themselves to the pertinent and.decisive
question which was announced in the beginning of this decision. This is one of those cases on which a variety of opinions all leading to the
same result can be had. A -majority of the court are of the opinion that the
It will be noted in the first place that the trial judge considered himself
Philippine Libel Law, Act No. 277, has had the effect of repealing so much
bound to follow the rule announced in the case of United States vs. Helbig
of article 256 of the Penal Code as relates to written defamation, abuse, or
(R. G. No. 14705, 1 not published). In that case, the accused was charged
insult, and that under the information and the facts, the defendant is
with having said, "To hell with the President and his proclamations, or
neither guilty of a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code, nor of the Libel
words to that effect," in violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. He was
Law. The view of the Chief Justice is that the accused should be acquitted
found guilty in a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila
for the reason that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute a
and again on appeal to the Supreme Court, with the writer of the instant
violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. Three members of the court
decision dissenting on two principal grounds: (1) That the accused was
believe that article 256 was abrogated completely by the change from
deprived of the constitutional right of cross-examination, and (2) that
Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and is inconsistent
article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is no longer in force. Subsequently,
with democratic principles of government.
on a motion of reconsideration, the court, being of the opinion that the
Court of First Instance had committed a prejudicial error in depriving the

4
Without prejudice to the right of any member of the court to explain his The facts here are that the editor of a newspaper published an article,
position, we will discuss the two main points just mentioned. naturally in writing, which may have had the tendency to impeach the
honesty, virtue, or reputation of members of the Philippine Senate,
1. Effect of the Philippine Libel Law, Act No. 277, on article 256 of the
thereby possibly exposing them to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule,
Spanish Penal Code.The Libel Law, Act No. 277, was enacted by the
which is exactly libel, as defined by the Libel Law. Sir J. F. Stephen is
Philippine Commission shortly after the organization of this legislative
authority for the statement that a libel is indictable when defaming a "body
body. Section 1 defines libel as a "malicious defamation, expressed either
of persons definite and small enough for individual members to be
in writing, printing, or by signs or pictures, or the like, or public theatrical
recognized as such, in or by means of anything capable of being a libel."
exhibitions, tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead or to
(Digest of Criminal Law, art. 267.) But in the United States, while it may be
impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation, or publish the alleged or
proper to prosecute criminally the author of a libel charging a legislator
natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby expose him to public
with corruption, criticisms, no matter how severe, on a legislature, are
hatred, contempt or ridicule." Section 13 provides that "All laws and parts
within the range of the liberty of the press, unless the intention and effect
of laws now in force, so far as the same may be in conflict herewith, are
be seditious. (3 Wharton's Criminal Law, p. 2131.) With these f acts and
hereby repealed. * * * "
legal principles in mind, recall that article 256 begins: "Any person who, by
That parts of laws in force in 1901 when the Libel Law took effect, were in * * * writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or
conflict therewith, and that the Libel Law abrogated certain portions of the other person in authority," etc.
Spanish Penal Code, cannot be gainsaid. Title X of Book II of the Penal Code,
The Libel Law is a complete and comprehensive law on the subject of libel.
covering the subjects of calumny and insults, must have been particularly
The well-known rule of statutory construction is, that where the later
affected by the Libel Law. Indeed, in the early case of Pardo de Tavera vs.
statute clearly covers the old subject-matter of antecedent acts, and it
Garcia Valdez ([1902], l.Phil., 468), the Supreme Court spoke of the Libel
plainly appears to have been the purpose of the legislature to give
Law as "reforming the preexisting Spanish law on the subject of calumnia
expresssion in it to the whole law on the subject, previous laws are held to
and injuria" Recently, specific attention was given to the effect of the Libel
be repealed by necessary implication. (1 Lewis' Sutherland Statutory
Law on the provisions of the Penal Code, dealing with calumny and insults,
Construction, p. 465.) For identical reasons, it is evident that Act No. 277
and it was found that those provisions of the Penal Code on the subject of
had the effect of repealing article 256 of the Penal Code, or at least so much
calumny and insults in which the elements of writing and publicity entered,
of this article as punishes defamation, abuse, or insults by writing.
were abrogated by the Libel Law. (People vs. Castro [1922], p. 842, ante.)
Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, the Treason and Sedition Law,
The Libel Law must have had the same result on other provisions of the
may also have affected article 256, but as to this point, it is not necessary
Penal Code, as for instance, article 256.
to make a pronouncement.

5
2. Effect of the change from Spanish to American sovereignty over the person, or the offensive writing be not addressed to him, shall suffer the
Philippines on article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code.Appellant's main penalty of arresto mayor,"that is, the defamation, abuse, or insult of any
proposition in the lower court and again energetically pressed in the Minister of the Crown of the Monarchy of Spain (for there could not be a
appellate court was that article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is not now Minister of the Crown in the United States of America), or other, person in
in f orce because abrogated by the change f rom Spanish to American authority in the Monarchy of Spain.
sovereignty over the Philippines and because inconsistent with democratic
It cannot admit of doubt that all those provisions of the Spanish Penal Code
principles of government. This view was indirectly favored by the trial
having to do with such subjects as treason, lse majest, religion and
judge, and, as before stated, is the opinion of three members of this court.
worship, rebellion, sedition, and contempts of ministers of the crown, are
Article 256 is found in Chapter V of Title III of Book II of the Spanish Penal no longer in force. Our present task, therefore, is a determination of
Code. Title I of Book II punishes the crimes of treason, crimes that endanger whether article 256 has met the same fate, or, more specifically stated,
the peace or independence of the state, crimes against international law, whether it is in the nature of a municipal law or a political law, and is
and the crime of piracy. Title II of the same book punishes the crimes of consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the
lse majest, crimes against the Cortes and its members and against the characteristics and institutions of the American Government.
council of ministers, crimes against the form of government, and crimes
It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the
committed on the occasion of the exercise of rights guaranteed by the
previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated.
fundamental laws of the state, including crimes against religion and
"Political" is here used to denominate the laws regulating the relations
worship. Title III of the same Book, in which article 256 is found, punishes
sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. (American Insurance Co. vs.
the crimes of rebellion, sedition, assaults upon persons in authority, and
Canter [1828], 1 Pet., 511; Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Co. vs.
their agents, and contempts, insults, injurias, and threats against persons
McGlinn [1885], 114 U. S., 542; Roa vs. Collector of Customs [1912], 23
in authority, and insults, injurias, and threats against their agents and other
Phil., 315.) Mr. Justice Field of the United States Supreme Court stated the
public officers, the last being the title to Chapter V. The first two articles in
obvious when in the course of his opinion in the case of Chicago, Rock
Chapter V define and punish the offense of contempt committed by any
Island and Pacific Railway Co. vs. McGlinn, supra, he said: "As a matter of
one who shall by word or deed def ame, abuse, insult, or threaten a
course, all laws, ordinances and regulations in conflict with the political
minister of the crown, or any person in authority. Then with an article
character, institutions and Constitution of the new government are at once
condemning challenges to fight duels intervening, comes article 256, now
displaced. Thus, upon a cession of political jurisdiction and legislative
being weighed in the balance. It reads as follows: "Any person who, by
powerand the latter is involved in the formerto the United States, the
word, deed, or writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the
laws of the country in support of an established religion or abridging the
Crown or other person in authority, while engaged in the performance of
freedom of the press, or authorizing cruel and unusual punishments, and
official duties, or by reason of such performance, provided that the
the like, would at once cease to be of obligatory force without any
offensive conduct does not take place in the presence of such minister or
declaration to that effect." To quote again from the United States Supreme

6
Court: "It cannot be admitted that the King of Spain could, by treaty or The nature of the government which has been set up in the Philippines
otherwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives; and under American sovereignty was outlined by President McKinley in that
much less can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive or power Magna Charta of Philippine liberty, his instructions to the Commission, of
to exercise them. Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise, April 7, 1900. In part, the President said:
must hold it subject to the Constitution and laws of its own government,
"In all the forms of government and administrative provisions which they
and not according to those of the government ceding it." (Pollard vs. Hagan
are authorized to prescribe, the Commission should bear in mind that the
[1845], 3 How., 210.)
government which they are establishing is designed not for our satisfaction
On American occupation of the Philippines, by instructions of the President or for the expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace,
to the Military Commander dated May 28, 1898, and by proclamation of and prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands, and the measures
the latter, the municipal laws of the conquered territory affecting private adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and
rights of person and property and providing for the punishment of crime even their prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent with the
were nominally continued in force in so far as they were compatible with accomplishment of the indispensable requisites of just and effective
the new order of things. But President McKinley, in his instructions to government. At the same time the Commission should bear in mind, and
General Merritt, was careful to say: "The first effect of the military the people of the Islands should be made plainly to understand, that there
occupation of the enemy's territory is the severance of the former political are certain great principles of government which have been made the basis
relation of the inhabitants and the establishment of a new political power." of our governmental system, which we deem essential to the rule of law
From that day to this, the Spanish codes, as codes, have been constantly and the maintenance of individual freedom, and of which they have,
applied, and ordinarily it has been taken for granted that the provisions unfortunately, been denied the experience possessed by us; that there are
under consideration were still effective. To paraphrase the language of the also certain practical rules of government which we have found to be
United States Supreme Court in Weems vs. United States ([1910], 217 U. essential to the preservation of these great principles of liberty and law,
S., 349), there was not and could not be, except as precise questions were and that these principles and these rules of government must be
presented, a careful consideration of the codal provisions and a established and maintained in their islands for the sake of their liberty and
determination of the extent to which they accorded with or were happiness, however much they may conflict with the customs or laws of
repugnant to the " 'great principles of liberty and law' which had been procedure with which they are familiar. It is evident that the most
'made the basis of our governmental system'" But when the question has enlightened thought of the Philippine Islands fully appreciates the
been squarely raised, the appellate court has been forced on occasion to importance of these principles and rules, and they will inevitably within a
hold certain portions of the Spanish codes repugnant to democratic short time command universal assent."
institutions and American constitutional principles. (U. S. vs. Sweet [1901],
The courts have naturally taken the same view. Mr. Justice Elliott, speaking
1 Phil., 18; U. S. vs. Balcorta [1913], 25 Phil., 273; U. S. vs. Smith [1919], 39
for our Supreme Court, in the case of United States vs. Bull ([1910], 15 Phil.,
Phil., 533; Weems vs. U. S., supra.)
7), said: "The President and Congress framed the government on the

7
model with which Americans are familiar, and which has proven best It is true that in England, from which so many of the laws and institutions
adapted for the advancement of the public interests and the protection of of the United States are derived, there were once statutes of scandalum
individual rights and privileges." magnatum, under which words which would not be actionable if spoken of
an ordinary subject were made actionable if spoken of a peer of the realm
Therefore, it has come with somewhat of a shock to hear the statement
or of any of the great officers of the Crown, without proof of any special
made that the happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the
damage. The Crown of England, unf ortunately, took a view less tolerant
Philippine Islands and their customs, habits, and prejudices, to follow the
than that of other sovereigns, as for instance, the Emperors Augustus,
language of President McKinley, demand obeisance to authority, and royal
Caesar, and Tiberius. These English statutes have, however, long since,
protection for that authority.
become obsolete, while in the United States, the offense of scandalum
According to our view, article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted magnatum is not known. In the early days of the American Republic, a
by the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the sedition law was enacted, making it an offense to libel the Government,
representatives of the King. With the change of sovereignty, a new the Congress, or the President of the United States, but the law met with
government, and a new theory of government, was set up in the so much popular disapproval, that it was soon repealed. "In this country no
Philippines. It was in no sense a continuation of the old, although merely distinction as to persons is recognized, and in practice a person holding a
for convenience certain of the existing institutions and laws were high office is regarded as a target at whom any person may let fly his
continued. The demands which the new government made, and makes, on poisonous words. High official position, instead of affording immunity from
the individual citizen are likewise different. No longer is there a Minister of slanderous and libelous charges, seems rather to be regarded as making
the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen his character free plunder for any one who desires to create a sensation by
must speak of him only with bated breath. "In the eye of our Constitution attacking it." (Newell, Slander and Libel, 3d ed., p. 245; Sillars vs. Collier
and laws, every man is a sovereign, a ruler and a freeman, and has equal [1890], 151 Mass., 50; 6 L. R. A., 680.)
rights with every other man. We have no rank or station, except that of
Article 256 of the Penal Code is contrary to the genius and fundamental
respectability and intelligence as opposed to indecency and ignorance, and
principles of the American character and system of government. The gulf
the door to this rank stands open to every man to freely enter and abide
which separates this article from the spirit which inspires all penal
therein, if he is qualified, and whether he is qualified or not depends upon
legislation of American origin, is as wide as that which separates a
the life and character and attainments and conduct of each person for
monarchy from a democratic republic like that of the United States. This
himself. Every man may lawfully do what he will, so long as it is not malum
article was crowded out by implication as soon as the United States
in se or malum prohibitum or does not infringe upon the equally sacred
established its authority in the Philippine Islands. Penalties out of all
rights of others." (State vs. Shepherd [1903], 177 Mo., 205; 99 A. S. R.,
proportion to the gravity of the offense, grounded in a distorted
624.)
monarchical conception of the nature of political authority, as opposed to

8
the American conception of the protection of the interests of the public, information do not constitute a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code;
have been obliterated by the present system of government in the Islands. f or although that article is in force with respect to calumny, injuria, or
insult, by deed or word, against an authority in the performance of his
From an entirely different point of view, it must be noted that this article
duties or by reason thereof, outside of his presence, it is repealed by the
punishes contempts against executive officials, although its terms are
Libel Law in so far as it refers to calumny, injuria, or insult committed
broad enough to cover the entire official class. Punishment for contempt
against an authority by writing or printing, as was that inserted in the said
of nonjudicial officers has no place in a government based upon American
information.
principles. Our official class is not, as in monarchies, an agent of some
authority greater than ,the people but it is an agent and servant of the Svarez vs. Suarez
people themselves. These officials are only entitled to respect and
ROMUALDEZ, J., with whom concur JOHNSON, STREET, AVANCEA, and
obedience when they are acting within the scope of their authority and
VILLAMOR, JJ., concurring:
jurisdiction. The American system of government is calculated to enforce
respect and obedience where such respect and obedience is due, but never I concur with the result. I believe that the responsibility of the accused has
does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an official not been shown either under article 256 of the Penal Code or under the
position by mandate of the people any official halo, which calls for drastic Libel Law.
punishment for contemptuous ptuous remarks.
I am of the opinion that article 256 of the Penal Code is still in force, except
The crime of lse majest disappeared in the Philippines with the as it refers to "Ministers of the Crown," whom we do not have in our
ratification of the Treaty of Paris. Ministers of the Crown have no place Government, and to calumny, injuria, or insult, by writing or printing,
under the American flag. committed against an authority in the perf ormance of his duties or by
reason thereof, which portion was repealed by the Libel Law.
To summarize, the result is, that all the members of the court are of the
opinion, although for different reasons, that the judgment should be Judgment reversed, defendant acquitted. People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887,
reversed and the defendant and appellant acquitted, with costs de officio. No. 18463 October 4, 1922
So ordered.

Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.

ARAULLO, C. J., concurring:

I concur with the dispositive part of the foregoing decision, that is, with the
acquittal of the accused, for the sole reason that the facts alleged in the