People v. Mangahas (1939)

“People v. Mangahas” is a Supreme Court en banc ruling (G.R. No. 46551, Dec. 12, 1939) which I discovered serendipitously last week upon googling my column, “The state of the people,” prior to posting on Facebook.

The appellant of this case was the writer Federico Mangahas, my father, who never recounted it to the family. Thus we now know a bit more of his life story, thanks to Google, which apparently looked up “Mangahas” and “people” together.

The ruling (Justice Jose P. Laurel, ponente), tells the story:

“As an aftermath of the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga in criminal case No. 5733, The People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Alarcon, et al., convicting the accused therein, except one, of the crime of robbery committed in band, a denunciatory letter, signed by Luis M. Taruc, was addressed to His Excellency, the President of the Philippines. A copy of said letter found its way to the herein respondent, Federico Mangahas who, as columnist of the Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, quoted the letter in an article published by him in the issue of that paper of September 23, 1937.”

According to the petition of the provincial fiscal of Pampanga, filed with the Court of First Instance of that province on Sept. 29, 1937, the following portion of Mangahas’ article constituted contempt of court:

“Fifty-two (52) tenants in Floridablanca, Pampanga, have been charged and convicted on a trumped up charge of robbery in band because they took each a few cavans of palay for which they issued the corresponding receipts, from the bodega in the hacienda where they are working. These tenants contend that they have the right to take the palay for their food as the hacienda owner has the obligation to give them rations of palay for their maintenance and their families to be paid later with their share of their crop. But this is not all. When the convicted tenants appealed the case and were released on bail pending their appeal, court and public officials exerted pressure upon one of their bondsmen, as this bondsman informed the tenants, to withdraw his bail for them, and the fifty-two tenants were arrested again and put in jail.”

On Sept. 23, 1937, the lower court ordered the respondent to appear and show cause. The respondent (represented by Araneta, Zaragoza & Araneta) appeared and answered:

That he did not draft and write the paragraph above quoted in the petition of the provincial fiscal, but the same is merely a part of a letter addressed to the President of the Philippines.

That he caused the said letter to be copied without comments or remarks, as seen from the attached issue of the “The Tribune” on Sept. 23, 1937.

That in having the said letter copied it was not his intention, purpose or design to attack the honor, virtue and reputation of this honorable court, but he merely cited it as an instance of the popular tendency to resort to the President in everything.

That far from reflecting on the honor, virtue and reputation of this honorable court, the publication of the letter to the President simply constitutes an indirect criticism of the methods of the Popular Front in building up its political prestige.

That the publication of the letter in question did not and does not embarrass, impede, intimidate or influence this honorable court in the exercise of its judicial functions, or prevent an impartial trial in this case, inasmuch as the case has already been decided.

That this case is no longer pending before this honorable court and therefore the court has lost its jurisdiction over it.

That the portion of the article quoted by the provincial fiscal in his petition does not constitute contempt of court because it does not attack or question the judgment of the court but only explains the side of the defendant.

That the general rule is that to constitute any publication as contempt, it must have reference to a matter then pending in court, and be of a character tending to the injury of a pending proceeding before it.

That the publication of the letter in question is in line with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected Mangahas’ answers, and, on Nov. 29, 1937, fined him P25, or else five days in prison in case of insolvency. (At that time, FM’s monthly salary was P200.) Mangahas appealed to the Court of Appeals, which later certified the case to the Supreme Court as involving only a question of law.

The ruling written by Justice Laurel states (Avanceña, C.P., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ., concurring; Moran, C.J., dissenting): “[I]n considering the probable effects of the article alleged to be contemptuous, every fair and reasonable inference consistent with the theory of defendant’s innocence will be indulged …, and where a reasonable doubt in fact or in law exists as to the guilt of one of constructive contempt for interfering with the due administration of justice the doubt must be resolved in his favor, and he must be acquitted.”

* * *

For essays of inimitable style, see “Maybe: Incidentally, the satire of Federico Mangahas,” edited and selected by Ruby K. Mangahas, University of the Philippines Press, 1998.

* * *

I also recommend Dr. Ned Roberto’s “How to Change the World: A manual for social marketers,” LifeCycle Press, 2012. Dr. Ned is the Filipino guru, not only of private marketing, but also of social marketing.

* * *

Contact SWS: www.sws.org.ph or [email protected].