Scribd
Upload
83 views1 page

Philippine Libel Law vs. Spanish Penal Code

The defendant, Gregorio Perfecto, was accused of violating Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code for publishing an article criticizing the Philippine Senate. Article 256 punishes defaming, abusing, or insulting any minister of the crown or person in authority. The Court ruled that Article 256 was no longer in effect for two reasons: 1) There are no longer kings or their representatives in the current government to protect. 2) With the change in sovereignty from Spain to the United States, the political laws regulating relations between inhabitants and the previous sovereign are abrogated. Therefore, the defendant was acquitted as he did not violate either Article 256 or the Philippine Libel Law.

Uploaded by

Stephanie Ladero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
83 views1 page

Philippine Libel Law vs. Spanish Penal Code

The defendant, Gregorio Perfecto, was accused of violating Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code for publishing an article criticizing the Philippine Senate. Article 256 punishes defaming, abusing, or insulting any minister of the crown or person in authority. The Court ruled that Article 256 was no longer in effect for two reasons: 1) There are no longer kings or their representatives in the current government to protect. 2) With the change in sovereignty from Spain to the United States, the political laws regulating relations between inhabitants and the previous sovereign are abrogated. Therefore, the defendant was acquitted as he did not violate either Article 256 or the Philippine Libel Law.

Uploaded by

Stephanie Ladero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

1

PEOPLE v. PERFECTO, PHIL. 887 G. R. NO. L-18463, October 4, 1922 MALCOLM, J.:

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
GREGORIO PERFECTOR, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

Fernando M. Guerrero, the Secretary of the Philippine Senate, discovered that documents
which consists of records of testimony given by witnesses in the investigation of oil
companies had disappeared from his [Link] day after he had informed the Senate body
of the loss of documents in the session called by the Governor-General, an article against
the Senate, which was edited by the herein defendant, Mr. Gregorio Perfecto, was
publishedin the newspaper La [Link]. Perfecto was accused to have violated the Article
256 of the Spanish Penal Code (SPC) which punishes “any person who, by *** writing, shall
defame, abuse, or insult, any Minister of the Crown or other person in authority”.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code (SPC) is still in effect
despite the change of soveriegnty from Spanish to United State.

RULING: No, the Article 256 of the SPC is not in effect and cannot be applied in this case.
First, the article was enacted to protect the Spanish officials who were representatives of
the King. However, there are no longer Kings nor representatives of the Kings to protect at
present and “Minister of the Crown” does not exist in the current government. Second, the
Philippine Libel Law (Act No. 227) had repealed so much in the provision that relates to
written defamation, abuse and insult in the SPC and based on the facts, the defendant
violatedneither of the two laws. Lastly, the change from Spanish to American sovereignty of
the [Link] stated as a general principle of public law, the laws that regulates the
relations of the inhabitants of the acquired territory to the previous sovereign are
abrogated. Therefore, the judgment was reversed, and the defendant-appellant was
acquitted.

REASONING: The Court stated that during the Spanish Government, Article 256 of the SPC
was enacted to protect Spanish officials as representatives of the King. However, the Court
explains that in the present case, we no longer have Kings nor its representatives for the
provision to protect. Also, with the change of sovereignty over the Philippines from Spanish
to American, it means that the invoked provision of the SPC had been automatically
abrogated. The Court determined Article 256 of the SPC to be ‘political’ in nature for it is
about the relation of the State to its inhabitants, thus, the Court emphasized that ‘it is a
general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory, the previous political
relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated.’ Hence, Article 256 of the SPC is
considered no longer in force and cannot be applied to the present case. Therefore,
respondent was acquitted.

You might also like