GR NO.

L-36426 PEOPLE vs NABONG DATE: 03 November 1932

Respondent was found guilty of the crime of sedition under Sec. 8, Act. 292, as amended.

Nabong, a lawyer engaged in the practive of law, represented a certain Juan Feleo, a
recognized communist leader, against the charge of sedition.

When the head of the communists died, a service was conducted in his memory. During the
service, a red flag would be displayed as an emblem of the communist.

When Major Gallardo, in charge of the PH constabulary, learned about the display of the red
flag, he talked to herein Respondent and requested to interfere and prevent the display of the
FACTS red flag since the same is unlawful according to the Fiscal. Respondent refused because he did
not agree with the conclusion of the fiscal and that there is no law prohibiting the display of the
red flag.

The communist still displayed the red flag, Major Gallardo then arrested Feleo for alleged
sedition. The meeting continued, and the Respondent made a speech criticizing the members of
the constabulary saying that the latter committed real abuse in seizing the flag and that they
are bad because they shoot even innocent women, and he also encouraged the other members
to be united and suppressed such abuse. He also said to overthrow the govt and establish their
own govt which is the govt of the poor. The fiscal and other officers of constabulary understood
Nabong’s speech, thus, they arrested him.
WHETHER OR NOT NABONG COMMITTED SEDITION?
ISSUE/S
A: Yes
The court note that the words used by Respondent should be interpreted as plain and obvious.
The words used manifestly tended to induce the people to resist and use violence against the
agents of the Constabulary and to instigate the poor to cabal and meet together for unlawful
purposes.

It is not necessary, in order to be seditious, that the words used should in fact result in a rising
of the people against the constituted authorities. The law is not aimed merely at actual
HELD disturbance, and its purpose is also to punish utterances which may endanger public order.

Such utterances, by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of
the State. They threaten breaches of the peace and ultimate revolution. And the immediate
danger is none the less real and substantial, because the effect of a given utterance cannot be
accurately foreseen.

RULING: GUILTY