Complete Title Vi Cases and Special Laws

1
CRIMINAL LAW 2|TITLE VI-CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS|CASES|FULL TEXT|SPECIAL LAWS| CBDP Files

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1602
PRESCRIBING STIFFER PENALTIES ON ILLEGAL GAMBLING
WHEREAS, Philippine Gambling Laws such as Articles 195-199 of the Revised Penal Code
(Forms of Gambling and Betting), R.A. 3063 (Horse racing Bookies), P.D. 449 (Cockfighting),
P.D. 483 (Game Fixing), P.D. 510 (Slot Machines) in relation to Opinion Nos. 33 and 97 of
the Ministry of Justice, P.D. 1306 (Jai-Alai Bookies) and other City and Municipal
Ordinances or gambling all over the country prescribe penalties which are inadequate to
discourage or stamp out this pernicious activities;
WHEREAS, there is now a need to increase their penalties to make them more effective in
combating this social menace which dissipate the energy and resources of our people;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines,
by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree:
Section 1. Penalties. The following penalties are hereby imposed:
(a) The penalty of prison correccional in its medium period of a fine ranging from one
thousand to six thousand pesos, and in case of recidivism, the penalty of prision mayor in
its medium period or a fine ranging from five thousand to ten thousand pesos shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any person other than those referred to in the succeeding sub-sections who in any
manner, shall directly or indirectly take part in any illegal or unauthorized activities or
games of cockfighting, jueteng, jai alai or horse racing to include bookie operations and
game fixing, numbers, bingo and other forms of lotteries; cara y cruz, pompiang and the
like; 7-11 and any game using dice; black jack, lucky nine, poker and its derivatives, monte,
baccarat, cuajao, pangguingue and other card games; paikque, high and low, mahjong,
domino and other games using plastic tiles and the likes; slot machines, roulette, pinball
and other mechanical contraptions and devices; dog racing, boat racing, car racing and
other forms of races, basketball, boxing, volleyball, bowling, pingpong and other forms of
individual or team contests to include game fixing, point shaving and other machinations;
banking or percentage game, or any other game scheme, whether upon chance or skill,
wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representative of value are at
stake or made;
2. Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling referred to in the
preceding subparagraph to be carried on in inhabited or uninhabited place or in any
building, vessel or other means of transportation owned or controlled by him. If the place
where gambling is carried on has a reputation of a gambling place or that prohibited
gambling is frequently carried on therein, or the place is a public or government building
or barangay hall, the malfactor shall be punished by prisioncorreccional in its maximum
period and a fine of six thousand pesos.
(b) The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its maximum period or a fine of six thousand
pesos shall be imposed upon the maintainer or conductor of the above gambling schemes.
(c) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period with temporary absolute
disqualification or a fine of six thousand pesos shall be imposed if the maintainer,
conductor or banker of said gambling schemes is a government official, or where such
government official is the player, promoter, referee, umpire, judge or coach in case of
game fixing, point shaving and machination.
(d) The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its medium period or a fine ranging from four
hundred to two thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall, knowingly
and without lawful purpose in any hour of any day, possess any lottery list, paper or other
matter containing letters, figures, signs or symbols pertaining to or in any manner used in
the games of jueteng, jai-alai or horse racing bookies, and similar games of lotteries and
numbers which have taken place or about to take place.
(e) The penalty of temporary absolute disqualifications shall be imposed upon any
barangay official who, with knowledge of the existence of a gambling house or place in his
jurisdiction fails to abate the same or take action in connection therewith.
(f) The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its maximum period or a fine ranging from five
hundred pesos to two thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any security officer, security
guard, watchman, private or house detective of hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures and
the like which have the reputation of a gambling place or where gambling activities are
being held.
Section 2. Informer's reward. Any person who shall disclose information that will lead to
the arrest and final conviction of the malfactor shall be rewarded twenty percent of the
cash money or articles of value confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government.
Section 3. Repealing Clause. Provisions of Art. 195-199 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, Republic Act No. 3063, Presidential Decrees Numbered 483, 449, 510 and 1306,
letters of instructions, laws, executive orders, rules and regulations, city and municipal
ordinances which are inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed.
Section 4. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately upon publication at least
once in a newspaper of general circulation.
Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred
and seventy-eight.
Republic Act No. 9287 April 2, 2004
AN ACT INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL NUMBERS GAMES, AMENDING
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1602, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
2

Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is the policy of the State to promote a just and dynamic
social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the
people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full
employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all. It is likewise
the policy of the State that the promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to
create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
Hence, the State hereby condemns the existence of illegal gambling activities such as
illegal numbers games as this has become an influential factor in an individual's disregard
for the value of dignified work, perseverance and thrift since instant monetary gains from
it are being equated to success, thereby becoming a widespread social menace and a
source of corruption.
Towards this end, the State shall therefore adopt more stringent measures to stop and
eradicate the existence of illegal numbers games in any part of the country.
Sec. 2. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:
a) Illegal Numbers Game. - Any form illegal gambling activity which uses numbers or
combinations thereof as factors in giving out jackpots.
b) Jueteng. - An illegal numbers game that involves the combination of thirty-seven (37)
numbers against thirty-seven (37) numbers from number one (1) to thirty seven (37) or the
combination of thirty-eight (38) numbers in some areas, serving as a form of local lottery
where bets are placed and accepted per combination, and its variants.
c) Masiao. - An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is derived from the
results of the last game of Jai Alai or the Special Llave portion or any result thereof based
on any fictitious Jai Alai game consisting of ten (10) players pitted against one another, and
its variants.
d) Last Two. - An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is derived from the
last two (2) numbers of the first prize of the winning Sweepstakes ticket which comes out
during the weekly draw of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), and its
variants.
e) Bettor ("Mananaya", "Tayador" or variants thereof). - Any person who places bets for
himself/herself or in behalf of another person, or any person, other than the personnel or
staff of any illegal numbers game operation.
f) Personnel or Staff of Illegal Numbers Game Operation. - Any person, who acts in the
interest of the maintainer, manager or operator, such as, but not limited to, an
accountant, cashier, checker, guard, runner, table manager, usher, watcher, or any other
personnel performing such similar functions in a building structure, vessel, vehicle, or any
other place where an illegal numbers game is operated or conducted.
g) Collector or Agent ("Cabo", "Cobrador", "Coriador" or variants thereof). - Any person
who collects, solicits or produces bets in behalf of his/her principal for any illegal numbers
game who is usually in possession of gambling paraphernalia.
h) Coordinator, Controller or Supervisor ("Encargado" or variants thereof). - Any person
who exercises control and supervision over the collector or agent.
i) Maintainer, Manager or Operator. - Any person who maintains, manages or operates
any illegal number game in a specific area from whom the coordinator, controller or
supervisor, and collector or agent take orders.
j) Financiers or Capitalist. - Any person who finances the operations of any illegal numbers
game.
k) Protector or Coddler. - Any person who lends or provides protection, or receives benefits
in any manner in the operation of any illegal numbers game.
Sec. 3. Punishable Acts. - Any person who participates in any illegal numbers game shall
suffer the following penalties:
a) The penalty of imprisonment from thirty (30) days to ninety (90) days, if such person
acts as a bettor;
b) The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, if such
person acts as a personnel or staff of an illegal numbers game operation;
The same penalty shall likewise be imposed to any person who allows his vehicle, house,
building or land to be used in the operation of the illegal numbers games.
c) The penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, if
such person acts as a collector or agent;
d) The penalty of imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, if
such person acts as a coordinator, controller or supervisor;
e) The penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to ten (10)
fourteen (14) years, if such person acts as a maintainer, manager or operator; and
f) The penalty of imprisonment from fourteen (14) years and one (1) day to sixteen (16)
years, if such person acts as a financier or capitalist;
g) The penalty of imprisonment from sixteen (16) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years, if such person acts as protector or coddler.
Sec. 4. Possession of Gambling Paraphernalia or Materials. - The possession of any
gambling paraphernalia and other materials used in the illegal numbers game operation
shall be deemed prima facie evidence of any offense covered by this Act.
3

Sec. 5. Liability of Government Employees and/or Public Officials. - a) If the collector,
agent, coordinator, controller, supervisor, maintainer, manager, operator, financier or
capitalist of any illegal numbers game is a government employee and/or public official,
whether elected or appointed shall suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day
to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three million pesos (P3,000,000.00) to Five
million pesos (P5,000,000.00) and perpetual absolute disqualification from public office.
In addition to the penalty provided in the immediately preceding section, the accessory
penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office shall be imposed upon any local
government official who, having knowledge of the existence of the operation of any illegal
numbers game in his/her jurisdiction, fails to abate or to take action, or tolerates the same
in connection therewith.
b) In the case of failure to apprehend perpetrators of any illegal numbers game, any law
enforcer shall suffer an administrative penalty of suspension or dismissal, as the case may
be, to be imposed by the appropriate authority.
Sec. 6. Liability of Parents/Guardians. - The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months
and one (1) day to one (1) year or fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
parent, guardian or person exercising moral authority or ascendancy over a minor, ward or
incapacitated person, and not otherwise falling under any of the foregoing subsections,
who induces or causes such minor, ward or incapacitated person to commit any of the
offenses punishable in this Act. Upon conviction, the parent, guardian or person exercising
moral authority or ascendancy over the minor, ward or incapacitated person shall be
deprived of his/her authority over such person in addition to the penalty imposed.
Sec. 7. Recidivism. - The penalty next higher in degree as provided for under Section 3
hereof shall be imposed upon a recidivist who commits any of the offenses punishable in
this Act.
Sec. 8. Immunity from Prosecution. - Any person who serves as a witness for the
government or provides evidence in a criminal case involving any violation of this Act, or
who voluntarily or by virtue of a subpoena testificandum or ducestecum, produces,
identifies, or gives testimony shall be immune from any criminal prosecution, subject to
the compliance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1732, otherwise known as
Decree Providing Immunity from Criminal Prosecution to Government Witnesses and the
pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court.
Sec. 9. Prosecution, Judgment and Forfeiture of Property. - Any person may be charged
with or convicted of the offenses covered by this Act without prejudice to the prosecution
of any act or acts penalized under the Revised Penal Code or existing laws.
During the pendency of the case, no property or income used or derived therefrom which
may be confiscated and forfeited shall be disposed, alienated or transferred and the same
shall be in custodialegis and no bond shall be admitted for the release of the same.
The trial prosecutors shall avail of provisional remedies provided for under the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Upon conviction, all proceeds, gambling paraphernalia and other instruments of the crime
including any real or personal property used in any illegal numbers game operation shall
be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State. All assets and properties of the accused
either owned or held by him/her in his/her name or in the name of another person found
to be manifestly out of proportion to his/her lawful income shall be prima facie presumed
to be proceeds of the offense and shall likewise be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
State.
Sec. 10. Witness Protection. - Any person who provides material information, whether
testimonial or documentary, necessary for the investigation or prosecution of individuals
committing any of the offenses under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 herein shall be placed under
the Witness Protection Program pursuant to Republic Act. No. 6981.
Sec. 11. Informer's Reward. - Any person who, having knowledge or information of any
offense committed under this Act and who shall disclose the same which may lead to the
arrest and final conviction of the offender, may be rewarded a certain percentage of the
cash money or articles of value confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government, which
shall be determined through a policy guideline promulgated by the Department of Justice
(DOJ) in coordination with the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and
the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).
The DILG, the NAPOLCOM and the DOJ shall provide for a system of rewards and
incentives for law enforcement officers and for local government official for the effective
implementation of this Act.
Sec. 12. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - Within sixty (60) days from the effectivity
of this Act, the DILG, DOJ, NAPOLCOM, and other concerned government agencies shall
jointly promulgate the implementing rules and regulations, as may be necessary to ensure
the efficient and effective implementation of the provisions of this Act.
Sec. 13. Separability Clause. - If for any reason any section or provision of this Act, or any
portion thereof, or the application of such section, provision or portion thereof to any
person, group or circumstance is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining
provisions of this Act shall not be affected by such declaration and shall remain in force
and effect.
Sec. 14. Amendatory Clause. - The pertinent provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1602, in
so far as they are inconsistent herewith, are hereby expressly amended or modified
accordingly.
Sec. 15. Repealing Clause. - The provisions of other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules
and regulations inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified
accordingly.
4

Sec. 16. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at
least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
June 13, 1974
PENALIZING BETTING, GAME-FIXING OR POINT SHAVING AND MACHINATIONS IN
SPORTS CONTESTS
WHEREAS, the evil that is gambling has again shown its ugly head in the recently-
discovered game-fixing or point- shaving scandals during sports contests;
WHEREAS, one of the objectives of the New Society is the development and promotion of
desirable moral and cultural values;
WHEREAS, there is urgent need to protect one youth and sports programs and the
morality of our society, especially the youth, from the eroding influence of unscrupulous
persons who, through fraudulent schemes of game-fixing or point-shaving and other
machinations, have made basketball and other sports contests, games and races their
media of subverting the aims and goals of true Philippine sportsmanship;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution, and pursuant to Proclamations No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972 and No.
1104, dated January 17, 1973; and General Order No. 1, dated September 22, 1972, do
hereby order and decree that the following shall be part of the law of the land:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Decree, the following terms shall mean and be
understood to be as hereunder indicated:
a. Betting money or any object or article of value or representative of value upon the
result of any game, races and other sports contest.
b. Game-fixing any arrangement, combination, scheme or agreement by which the result
of any game, races or sports contests shall be predicted and/or known other than on the
basis of the honest playing skill or ability of the players or participants.
c. Point-shaving any such arrangement, combination, scheme or agreement by which the
skill or ability of any player or participant in a game, races or sports contests to make
points or scores shall be limited deliberately in order to influence the result thereof in
favor of one or other team, player or participant therein.
d. Game-machinations any other fraudulent, deceitful, unfair or dishonest means, method,
manner or practice employed for the purpose of influencing the result of any game, races
or sport contest.
Section 2. Betting, game-fixing, point-shaving or game machination unlawful. Game-fixing,
point-shaving, machination, as defined in the preceding section, in connection with the
games of basketball, volleyball, softball, baseball; chess, boxing bouts, "jai-alai", "sipa",
"pelota" and all other sports contests, games or races; as well as betting therein except as
may be authorized by law, is hereby declared unlawful.
Section 3. Penalty. Any violation of this Decree, or of the rules and regulations
promulgated in accordance herewith, shall be punished in the manner following:
a. When the offender is an official, such as promoter, referee, umpire, judge, or coach in
the game, race or sports contests, or the manager or sponsor of any participating team,
individual or player therein, or participants or players in such games, races or other sports
contests, he shall, upon conviction, be punished by prisioncorreccional in its maximum
period and a fine of 2,000 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, at the
discretion of the court. This penalty shall also be imposed when the offenders compose a
syndicate of five or more persons.
b. In case of any offender, he shall, upon conviction, be punished by prisioncorreccional in
its medium period and a fine of 1,000 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency at the discretion of the court.
c. When the offender is an official or employee of any government office or agency
concerned with the enforcement or administration of laws and regulations on sports the
penalty provided for in the preceding Section 3 a small be imposed. In addition, he shall be
disqualified from holding any public office or employment for life. If he is an alien, he may
be deported.
Section 4. Clearance for arrest, detention or prosecution. No person who voluntarily
discloses or denounces to the President of the Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation or
to the National Sports Associations concerned and/or to any law enforcement/police
authority any of the acts penalized by this Decree shall be arrested, detained and/or
prosecuted except upon prior written clearance from the President of the Philippines
and/or of the Secretary of National Defense.
Section 5. Repealing Clause. Article 197 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, all provisions of decrees, general orders, letters of instructions,
laws, executive orders and rules and regulations which are inconsistent with this Decree
are hereby repealed.
Section 6. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately upon publication thereof
by the Secretary of the Department of Public Information at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation.
and seventy-four.

July 24, 1976
5

AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 960 WHICH AMENDED
ARTICLE 201 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers in me
vested by the Constitution, do hereby decree and order:
Section 1. Sections 1 and 2 paragraph 1 of Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 960 are
hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 1. Amendment of Article 201, Revised Penal Code. Article 201 of Act Numbered
Thirty-Eight hundred and fifteen, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, is amended
to read as follows:
"Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibition, and indecent shows.
The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos,
or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:
"1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals;
"2. a. The authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the
editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling
the same;
"b. Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit indecent or
immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, it being understood that the obscene literature or
indecent or immoral plays scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are
prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which: (1) glorify criminals or condone
crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or
pornography; (3) offend any race religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited
drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established
policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts.
"3. Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or
literature which are offensive to morals.
"Sec. 2. Disposition of the Prohibited Articles. The disposition of the literature, films,
prints, engravings, sculptures, painting, or other materials involved in the violation
referred to in Section 1 hereof shall be governed by the following rules:
"a. Upon conviction of the offender, to be forfeited in favor of the government to be
destroyed.
"b. Where the criminal case against any violator of this decree results in acquittal, the
obscene/immoral literature, films, prints, engravings, sculpture, paintings or other
materials and articles involved in the violation referred to in Section 1 hereof shall
nevertheless be forfeited in favor of the government to be destroyed, after forfeiture
proceedings conducted as the Chief of Constabulary.
"c. The person aggrieved by the forfeiture action of the Chief of Constabulary may, within
fifteen (15) days after his receipt of a copy of the decision, appeal the matter to the
Secretary of National Defense for review. The decision of the Secretary of National
Defense shall be final and unappealable.
"Sec. 4. Additional Penalties. Additional penalties shall be imposed as follows:
"1. In case the offender is a government official or employee who allows the violations of
Section 1 hereof, the penalty as provided herein shall be imposed in the maximum period
and, in addition, the accessory penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, shall likewise be imposed."
Section 2. To be inserted between Sections 4 and 5 of Presidential Decree No. 960 is
Section 4-A to read as follows:
"Sec. 4-A. The Chief of Constabulary shall, with the approval of the Secretary of National
Defense, promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the implementation of this
decree."
Section 3. This decree shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication by the
Department of Public Information in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Done in the City of Manila, this 24th day of July in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred
and seventy-six.
G.R. No. L-20569 October 29, 1923
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
J. J. KOTTINGER, defendant-appellant.
Fisher, Dewitt, Perkins and Brady for appellant.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.:
The question to be here decided is whether or not pictures portraying the inhabitants of
the country in native dress and as they appear and can be seen in the regions in which
they live, are absence or indecent. Surprising as it may seem, the question is one of first
impression not alone in the Philippine Islands, but in the United States, Great Britain, and
elsewhere. This will explain why a case which otherwise would be heard and voted in
Division has been submitted to the court in banc for decision.
On November 24, 1922, detective Juan Tolentino raided the premises known as Camera
Supply Co. at 110 Escolta, Manila. He found and confiscated the post-cards which
subsequently were used as evidence against J. J. Kottinger, the manager of the company.
6

Out of these facts arose the criminal prosecution of J. J. Kottinger in the Court of First
Instance of Manila. The information filed in court charged him with having kept for sale in
the store of the Camera Supply Co., obscene and indecedent pictures, in violation of
section 12 of Act No. 277. To this information, the defendant interposed a demurrer based
upon the ground that the facts alleged therein did not constitute an offense and were not
contrary to law; but trial court overruled the demurrer and the defendant duly excepted
thereto. Following the presentation of evidence by the Government and the defense,
judgment was rendered finding the defendant guilty of the offense charged and
sentencing him to pay a fine of P50 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and the costs.
The five errors assigned by defendant-appellant in this court divide themselves into two
general issues. The first point sustained by counsel for the appellant is in nature a technical
objection, growing out of the defendant's demurrer. The second point, in reality the
decesive issue, is as suggested in the beginning of the decision. We will take upon the
assignments of errors as thus classified in order.
Act No. 277 is the Philippine Libel Law. But included therein is a section, No. 12, making
obscene or indecent publications misdemeanors. Said section 12 which, it is contended by
the Government, has here been violated, and which, appellant argues, does not apply to
the information and the facts, reads as follow:
Any person who writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, publishes, sells, or keeps for sale,
distributes, or exhibits any obscene or indecent writing, paper, book, or other matter, or
who designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints, or otherwise prepares any obscene picture
or print, or who moulds, cuts, casts, or otherwise makes any obscene or indecent figure, or
who writes, composes, or prints any notice or advertisement of any such writing, paper,
book, print, or figure shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not
exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.
Counsel has gone to the trouble to make a careful analysis of section 12 of the Libel Law
which is intended to bear out his thesis, first, that section 12 does not prohibit the taking,
selling, and publishing of alleged obscene and indecent pictures and prints, and second,
that the information in this case charges no offense prohibited by section 12. Recall,
however, that the law provides punishment, among other things, for any person who
keeps for sale or exhibits any absence or indecent writing, paper, book, or other matter,
and that the information charges the defendant, among other things, with having wilfully
and feloniously kept for sale, distribution, or exhibition, obscene and indecent pictures.
The phrase in the law "or other matter", was apparently added as a sort of "catch-all."
While limited to that which is of the same kind as its antecedent, it is intended to cover
kindred subjects. The rule of ejusdemgenerisinvoked by counsel is by no means a rule of
universal application and should be made to carry out, not to defeat, the legislative intent.
Even if the phrase "or other matter" be cobstrued to mean "or other matter of like kind,"
pictures and postcards are not so far unrelated to writings, papers, and books, as not to be
covered by the general words (Commonwealth vs. Dejardin [1878], 126 Mass., 46; 30 Am.
Rep., 652; Brown vs. Corbin [1889], 40 Minn., 508).
The line of argumentation is more refined that practical. Once conceded that section 12 of
Act No. 277 does not cover the present case, there yet remain for application article 571,
No. 2, of the penal code, and section 730 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila.
The section of the Revised Ordinances cited is most specific when it provides in part that
no person shall "exhibit, circulate, distribute, sell, offer or expose for sale, or give or
deliver to another, or cause the same to be done, any lewd, indecent, or absence
book, picture, pamphlet, card, print, paper, writing, mould, cast, figure, or any other
thing."
While admittedly the information is lacking in precision and while the content of section
12 of the Libel Law is not as inclusive as it might be, we yet conclude that the information
is not fatally defective, and that said section 12 covers the alleged facts.
We come now to decide the main issue. We repeat that our own researches have
confirmed the statement of counsel that no one parrallel case be found. We must perforce
reason from the general to the specific and from universal principle to actual fact.
The pictures which it is argued offend against the law on account of being obscene and
indecent, disclose six different postures of non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippines.
Exhibit A carries the legend "Philippines, Bontoc Woman." Exhibit A-1 is a picture of five
young boys and carries the legend "Greetings from the Philippines." Exhibit A-2 has the
legend "Ifugao Belle, Philippines. Greetings from the Philippines." Exhibit A-3 has the
legend "Igorot Girl, Rice Field Costume." Exhibit A-4 has the legend "Kalinga Girls,
Philippines. Exhibit A-5 has the legend "Moros Philippines."
The prosecution produced no evidence proving the postcards obscene and indecent
because it thought the post-cards themselves the best evidence of that fact. The fiscal
admitted in open court "that those pictures represented the natives (non-Christians) in
their native dress." The defendant, on the other hand, attempted to show that the
pictures as true to life. Dr. H. Otley Beyer, Professor in the University of the Philippines,
corroborated by other witnesses, testified from his studies in various parts of the Islands,
such as the Mountain Province, Abra, Palawan, and Mindanao and Sulu, that none of the
pictures represented poses which he had not observed on various occasions, and that the
costumes worn by the people in the pictures are the true costumes regularly worn by
them. Are such pictures obscene or indecent?
The word "obscene" ands the term "obscenity" may be defined as meaning something
offensive to chastify, decency, or delicacy. "Indeceny" is an act against behavior and a just
delicacy. The test ordinarily followed by the courts in determining whether a particular
publication or other thing is obscene within the meaning of the statutes, is whether the
tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds
are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article
7

charged as being obscene may fall. Another test of obscenity is that which shocks the
ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency, (29 Cyc., 1315; 8 R. C. L., 312.)
The Philippine statute does not attempt to define obscene or indecent pictures, writings,
papers, or books. But the words "obscene or indecent" are themselves descriptive. They
are words in common used and every person of average intelligence understand their
meaning. Indeed, beyond the evidence furnished by the pictures themselves, there is but
little scope for proof bearing on the issue of obscenity or indecency. Whether a picture is
obscene or indecent must depend upon the circumstances of the case. (People vs. Muller
[1884], 96 N. Y., 408; 48 Am. Rep., 635.)
Considerable light can be thrown on the subject by turning to the Federal Laws prohibiting
the use of the mails for obscene matter and prohibiting the importation into the Philippine
Islands of articles, etc., of obscene or indecent character. (U. S. Rev. Stat., art. 3893; 36
stat. at L., 135; 7 Fed. Stat. Ann., 1194, sec. 3[b].)
"Obscene," as used in the Federal Statutes making it a criminal offense to place in the
mails any obscene, lewd, or lascivious publication, according to the united States Supreme
Court and lesser Federal courts, signifies that form of immorality which has relation to
sexual impurity, and has the same meaning as is given at common law in prosecutions for
obscene libel. (Swearingen vs. U. S. [1896], 161 U. S., 446; U. S. vs. Males [1892], 51 Fed.,
41; 6 Words and Phrases, 4888, 4889.)
The case of United States vs. Harmon ([189], 45 Fed., 414), grew out of an indictment for
despositing an obscene publication in a United States post-office in violator of the Postal
Law. Judge Philips said:
The statute does not undertake to define the meaning of the terms "obscene," etc.,
further than may be implied by the succeeding phrase, "or other publication of an
indecent character." On the well-organized canon of construction these words are
presumed to have been employed by the law-maker in their ordinary acceptation and use.
As they cannot be said to have acquired any technical significance as applied to some
particular matter, calling, or profession, but are terms of popular use, the court might
perhaps with propriety leave their import to the presumed intelligence of the jury. A
standard dictionary says that "obscene" mean "offensive to chastity and decency;
expressing or presenting to the mind or view something which delicacy, purity, and
decency forbid to be exposed." This mere dictionary definition may be extended or
amplified by the courts in actual practice, preserving, however, its essential though, and
having always due regard to the popular and proper sense in which the legislature
employed the term. Chief Justice Cockburn, in Rex vs. Hicklin (L. R. 3 Q. B., 360), said: "The
test of obscenity is this: Where the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to
deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into
whose hands a publication of this sort may fall;" and where "it who suggest to the minds of
the young of either sex, or even to persons of more advanced years, thoughts of the most
impure and libidinous character." So, also, it has been held that a book is obscene which is
offensive to decency or chastity, which is immodest, which is indelicate, impure, causing
lewd thoughts of an immoral tendency." U. S. vs. Bennet, 16 Blatchf., 338. Judge Thayer, in
U. S. vs. Clarke, 38 Fed. Rep., 732, observed:
"The word "obscene" ordinarily means something which is offensive to chastity; something
that is foul or filthy, and for that reason is offensive to pure-minded persons. That is the
meaning of the word in the concrete; but when used, as in the statute, to describe the
character of a book, pamphlet, or paper, it means containing immodest and indecent
matter, the reading whereof would have a tendency to deprave and corrupt the minds of
those into whose hands the publication might fall whose minds are open to such immoral
influences."
Laws of this character are made for society in the aggregate, and not in particular. So,
while there may be individuals and societies of men and women of peculiar motions are
idiosyncrasies, whose moral sense would neither be depraved nor offended by the
publication now under consideration, yet the exceptional sensibility, or want of sensibility,
of such cannot be allowed as a standard by which its obscenity or indecency is to be
tested. Rather is the test, what is the judgment of the aggregate sense of the community
reached by it? What is its probable, reasonable effect on the sense of decency, purity, and
chastity of society, extending to the family, made up of men and women, young boys and
girls, the family, which is the common nursery of mankind, the foundation rock upon
which the state reposes?
. . . To the pure all things are pure, is too poetical for the actualities of practical life. There
is in the popular conception and heart such a thing as modesty. It was born in the Garden
of Eden. After Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge they passed from the
condition of perfectibility which some people nowadays aspire to, and, their eyes being
opened, they discerned that there was both good and evil; "and they knew that they were
naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." From that day
to this civilized man has carried with him the sense of shame, the feeling that there
were some things on which the eye the mind should not look; and where men and
women become so depraved by the use, or so insensate from perverted education, that
they will not evil their eyes, nor hold their tongues, the government should perform the
office for them in protection of the social compact and the body politic.
As above intimated, the Federal statue prohibits the importation or shipment into the
Philippine Islands of the following: "Articles, books, pamphlets, printed matter,
manuscripts, typewritten matter, paintings, illustrations, figures or objects of obscene or
indecent character or subversive of public order." There are, however, in the record,
copies of reputable magazines which circulate freely thruout the United States and other
countries, and which are admitted into Philippines without question, containing
illustrations identical in nature to those forming the basis of the prosecution at bar.
Publications of the Philippine Government have also been offered in evidence such as
Barton's "Ifugao Law," the "Philippine Journal of Science" for October, 1906, and the
Reports of the Philippine Commission for 1903, 1912, and 1913, in which are found
illustrations either exactly the same or nearly akin to those which are now impugned.
8

It appears therefore that a national standard has been set up by the Congress of the
United States. Tested by that standard, it would be extremely doubtful if the pictures here
challenged would be held obscene or indecent by any state of Federal court. It would be
particularly unwise to sanction a different type of censorship in the Philippines that in the
United States, or for that matter in the rest of the world.
The pictures in question merely depict persons as they actually live, without attempted
presentation of persons in unusual postures or dress. The aggregate judgment of the
Philippine community, the moral sense of all the people in the Philippines, would not be
shocked by photographs of this type. We are convicted that the post-card pictures in this
case cannot be characterized as offensive to chastity, or foul, or filthy.
We readily understand the laudable motives which moved the Government to initiate this
prosecution. We fully appreciate the sentiments of colleagues who take a different view of
the case. We would be the last to offend the sensibilities of the Filipino people and the
sanction anything which would hold them up to ridicule in the eyes of mankind. But we
emphasize that we are not deciding a question in political theory or in social ethics. We are
dealing with a legal question predicated on a legal fact, and on this question and fact, we
reach the conclusion that there has not been proved a violation of section 12 of the Libel
Law. When other cases predicated on other states of facts are brought to our attention,
we will decide them as they arise.
We seem to recall the statement of counsel that the proprietor of the photographic
concern whom he represents would on his own initiative place suitable and explicit
inscriptions on the pictures so that no one may be misled as to them. Indeed, he might
even go further and out of consideration for the natural sensibilities of his customers,
withdraw from sale certain pictures which can be pointed out to him.
We hold that pictures portraying the inhabitants of the country in native dress and as they
appear and can be seen in the regions in which they live, are not obscene or indecent
within the meaning of the Libel Law. Disagreeing therefore with the appellant on his
technical argument but agreeing with him on his main contention, it becomes our duty to
order the dismissal of the information. 1awph!l.net
Judgment is reversed, the information is dismissed, and the defendant-appellant is
acquitted with all costs de oficio. So ordered.
Johnson, Street, Avancea, Villamor and Johns, JJ., concur.
Mr. Chief Justice Manuel Araullo was present at the time this case was voted and then
voted with Mr. Justice Romualdez. (Sgd.) E. FINLEY JOHNSON.

People vs. Aparici
52 O.G. 249

FACTS: Accused Aparici was charged with obscenity. The accused was caught while
performing in a theater wearing nylon patches to cover her breasts and nylon panty. She
avers that she was performing an artistic hula-hula dance to portray a widow who lost her
husband after being killed by the Japanese. However, the crowd watching were howling
and cheering to continue her performance because they were sexually aroused.

HELD: The accused was found guilty. The test of obscenity here is the reaction of the
crowd. Regarding the defense that the crowd was of the lower class, there was no proof.
Moreover, it doesn't matter what class the crowd belonged. What is important is that they
were induced or encourage to think of immoral acts.
G.R. No. L-7295 June 28, 1957

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARINA PADAN Y ALOVA, COSME ESPINOSA, ERNESTO REYES and JOSE
FAJARDO, defendants.
MARINA PADAN Y ALOVA and JOSE FAJARDO, defendants-appellants.
Augusto Revilla for appellant Jose Fajardo.
W. M. Bayhon for appellant Marina Padan y Alova.
Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Jose P. Alejandro for appellee.
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
In the Court of First Instance of Manila, Marina Padan, Jose Fajardo y Garcia, Cosme
Espinosa, and Ernesto Reyes were charged with a violation of Article 201 of the Revised
Penal Code, said to have been committed as follows:
That on or about the 13th day of September, 1953, in the city of Manila, Philippines, the
said accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously exhibit or cause to be exhibited inside a
building at the corner of Camba Ext. and Morga Ext., Tondo, this City, immoral scenes and
acts, to wit: the said accused Jose Fajador y Garcia, being then the manager and Ernesto
Reyes y Yabut, as ticket collector and or exhibitor, willfully,unlawfully and feloniously hired
their co-accused Marina Palan y Alova and Cosme Espinosa y Abordo to act as performers
or exhibitionists to perform and in fact performed sexual intercourse in the presence of
many spectators, thereby exhibiting or performing highly immoral and indecent acts or
shows thereat.
9

Upon arraignment, all pleaded not guilty. Later, however, Marina Padan, with the
assistance of her counsel de parte and counsel de oficio, asked for permission to withdraw
her former plea of not guilty, which was granted, and upon rearraignment, she pleaded
guilty to the charge. In a decision dated October 12, 1953, Marina Padan was found guilty
as charged and sentenced to six months and one day of prisioncorreccional and a fine of
P200, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, not to exceed one-third of the
principal penalty, with the accessory penalties prescribed by the law, and to pay the
proportionate costs. After trial of the three remaining accused, they were all found guilty;
Cosme Espinosa and Ernesto Reyes were sentenced each to not less than six months and
one day of prisioncorreccional and not more than one year, one month and eleven days
ofprisioncorreccional, to pay a fine of P500, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and to pay the proportionate
costs. Jose Fajardo was sentenced to not less than one year, one month and ten days
of prisioncorreccional and not more than one year eight months and twenty days, also
of prisioncorreccional, to pay a fine of P1,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty and to pay the proportionate
costs. The army steel bed, the army woolen blanket, the pillow, the ladies' panties, and the
men's underwear, described in Exhibit C, were declared confiscated.
The four accused appealed in the decision, the appeal having been sent to us. Appellants
Espinosa and Reyes failed to file their briefs within the period prescribed by law and their
appeal was dismissed by resolution of this Court of November 25, 1955, and the decision
as to them became final and executory on January 7, 1956, as appears from the entry of
judgment.
Because of her plea of guilty in the lower court, appellant Marina in her appeal do not
question her conviction; she merely urges the reduction of the penalty by eliminating the
prison sentence. We do not feel warranted in interfering with the exercise of discretion in
this matter, made by the lower court presided by Judge Magno S. Gatmaitan. According to
his decision of October 12, 1953, in imposing the sentence, he already considered Marina's
plea of leniency, and so despite the recommendation of the fiscal that she be fined
P600.00 in addition to the prison sentence of six months and one day, his honor reduced
the fine to only P200.
We believe that the penalty imposed fits the crime, considering its seriousness. As far as
we know, this is the first time that the courts in this jurisdiction, at least this Tribunal, have
been called upon to take cognizance of an offense against morals and decency of this kind.
We have had occasion to consider offenses like the exhibition of still moving pictures of
women in the nude, which we have condemned for obscenity and as offensive to morals.
In those cases, one might yet claim that there was involved the element of art; that
connoisseurs of the same, and painters and sculptors might find inspiration in the showing
of pictures in the nude, or the human body exhibited in sheer nakedness, as models in
tableaux vivants. But an actual exhibition of the sexual act, preceded by acts of
lasciviousness, can have no redeeming feature. In it, there is no room for art. One can see
nothing in it but clear and unmitigated obscenity, indecency, and an offense to public
morals, inspiring and causing as it does, nothing but lust and lewdness, and exerting a
corrupting influence specially on the youth of the land. We repeat that because of all this,
the penalty imposed by the trial court on Marina, despite her plea of guilty, is neither
excessive nor unreasonable.
Going to the appeal of Jose Fajardo y Garcia, while he does not deny the fact of the
commission of the offense charged, he in its that he was not the manager or the person
incharge of the show or proceedings on the night of September 13, 1953; that his
participation, if he participate at all, was to play the role of an innocent bystander, but that
because of his popularity in the neighborhood, being popularly known as a "siga-siga"
character, he was requested by the spectators to select the man and the woman to engage
or indulge in the actual act of coitus before the spectators; that after making the selection,
he did not even care to witness the act but left the scene and returned to it only when he
heard a commotion produced by the raid conducted by the police.
The evidence on his active participation and that he was the manager and one in charge of
the show is however ample, even conclusive. We have carefully examined such evidence,
and we are satisfied that they fully support the findings of the trial court. Such facts may
be briefly stated as follows: At the corner of Morga Extension and Camba Extension,
Tondo, Manila, was a one story building which judging from the picture exhibited is
nothing but a shed, with a floor space of eight by fifteen meters which was mainly used for
playing ping-pong. A ping-pong table must have been placed in the center and on two
sides were built benches in tiers, so that the spectators seated on them could look down
and see the game. On September 13, 1953, however, the building was used for a different
purpose. It was to be the scene of what was said to be an exhibition of human "fighting
fish", the actual act of coitus or copulation. It must have been advertised by word of
mouth; tickets therefor were sold at P3 each, and the show was supposed to begin at 8:00
o'clock in the evening. About that time of the night, there was already a crowd around the
building, but the people were not admitted into it until about an hour later, and the show
did not begin until about 9:15. The Manila Police Department must have gotten wind of
the affair; it bought tickets and provided several of its members who later attended the
show, but in plain clothes, and after the show conducted a raid and made arrests. At the
trial, said policemen testified as to what actually took place inside the building. About two
civilians who attended the affair gave testimony as to what they saw.
The customers not provided with tickets actually paid P3 at the entrance to defendant
Ernesto Reyes. He also collected tickets. In all, there were about ninety paying customers,
while about sixteen were allowed to enter free, presumably friends of the management.
Jose Fajardo y Garcia was clearly the manager of the show. He was at the door to see to it
that the customers either were provided with tickets or paid P3.00 entrance fee. He even
asked them from whom they had bought the tickets. He ordered that an army steel bed be
placed at the center of the floor, covered with an army blanket and provided with a pillow.
Once the spectators, about 106 in number, were crowded inside that small building, the
show started. Fajardo evidently to arouse more interest among the customers, asked them
to select among two girls presented who was to be one of the principal actors. By pointing
10

to or holding his hand over the head of each of the two women one after the other, and
judging by the shouts of approval emitted by the spectators, he decided that defendant
Marina Padan was the subject of popular approval, and he selected her. After her
selection, the other woman named Concha, left. Without much ado, Fajardo selected
Cosme Espinosa to be Marina's partner. Thereafter, Cosme and Marina proceeded to
disrobe while standing around the bed. When completely naked, they turned around to
exhibit their bodies to the spectators. Then they indulged in lascivious acts, consisting of
petting, kissing, and touching the private parts of each other. When sufficiently aroused,
they lay on the bed and proceeded to consummate the act of coitus in three different
positions which we deem unnecessary to describe. The four or five witnesses who testified
for the Government when asked about their reaction to what they saw, frankly admitted
that they were excited beyond description. Then the police who were among the
spectators and who were previously provided with a search warrant made the raid,
arrested the four defendants herein, and took pictures of Marina and Cosme still naked
and of the army bed, which pictures were presented as exhibits during the trial. From all
this, there can be no doubt that Jose Fajardo y Garcia contrary to what he claims, was the
person in charge of the show. Besides, as found by the trial court and as shown by some of
the tickets collected from the spectators, submitted as exhibits, said tickets while bearing
on one side printed matter regarding an excursion to Balara to be held on August 30, 1953
from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., sponsored by a certain club, on the other side appears the
following typewritten form, reading:
P3.00 Admit one
PLEASURE SHOW
Place: P. Morga Ext. and Camba Ext.
Time : 8:00 o'clock sharp,
and superimposed on the same is the rubber stamped name "Pepe Fajardo," which
defendant Fajardo admits to be his name. Considering all the above circumstances, we
agree with the trial court that Jose Fajardo is the most guilty of the four, for he was the
one who conducted the show and presumably derived the most profit or gain from the
same.
As regards the penalty imposed by the trial court on appellant Fajardo, we agree with the
Solicitor General that the same is correct, except the minimum thereof which is beyond
the legal range, and which should be reduced from one year, one month, and ten days
of prisioncorreccional to only six months of arresto mayor.
With the modification above-mentioned, the decision appealed from by Marina Padan and
Jose Fajardo are hereby affirmed, with costs against both.
G.R. No. 159751 December 6, 2006
GAUDENCIO E. FERNANDO and RUDY ESTORNINOS, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.

D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision
1
dated March 21, 2003 and the
Resolution dated September 2, 2003, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 25796,
which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC), Branch 21, in
Criminal Case No. 99-176582.
The RTC convicted Gaudencio E. Fernando and Rudy Estorninos for violation of Article
201
2
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 960 and 969, and
sentenced each to imprisonment of four (4) years and one (1) day to six (6) years
of prisioncorreccional, and to pay the fine of P6,000 and cost of suit.
The facts as culled from the records are as follows.
Acting on reports of sale and distribution of pornographic materials, officers of the
Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in the National
Capital Region (PNP-CIDG NCR) conducted police surveillance on the store bearing the
name of Gaudencio E. Fernando Music Fair (Music Fair). On May 5, 1999, Judge Perfecto
Laguio of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19, issued Search Warrant No. 99-
1216 for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner Gaudencio E.
Fernando and a certain Warren Tingchuy. The warrant ordered the search of Gaudencio E.
Fernando Music Fair at 564 Quezon Blvd., corner Zigay Street, Quiapo, Manila, and the
seizure of the following items:
a. Copies of New Rave Magazines with nude obscene pictures;
b. Copies of IOU Penthouse Magazine with nude obscene pictures;
c. Copies of Hustler International Magazine with nude obscene pictures; and
d. Copies of VHS tapes containing pornographic shows.
3

On the same day, police officers of the PNP-CIDG NCR served the warrant on Rudy
Estorninos, who, according to the prosecution, introduced himself as the store attendant
of Music Fair. The police searched the premises and confiscated twenty-five (25) VHS tapes
and ten (10) different magazines, which they deemed pornographic.
On September 13, 1999, petitioners with Warren Tingchuy, were charged in an
Information which reads as follows:
That on or about May 5, 1999, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, publicly and jointly exhibit indecent or immoral
acts, scenes or shows at Music Fair, located at 564 Quezon Blvd., corner Zigay [S]t.,
Quiapo[,] this City[,] by then and there selling and exhibiting obscene copies of x-rated VHS
Tapes, lewd films depicting men and women having sexual intercourse[,] lewd
11

photographs of nude men and women in explicating (sic) positions which acts serve no
other purpose but to satisfy the market for lust or pornography to public view.
Contrary to law.
4

When arraigned, petitioners and Tingchuy pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution offered the confiscated materials in evidence and presented the following
witnesses: Police Inspector Rodolfo L. Tababan, SPO4 Rolando Buenaventura and Barangay
Chairperson Socorro Lipana, who were all present during the raid. After the prosecution
presented its evidence, the counsel for the accused moved for leave of court to file a
demurrer to evidence, which the court granted. On October 5, 2000, the RTC however
denied the demurrer to evidence and scheduled the reception of evidence for the accused.
A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Thereafter, the accused waived their right to present evidence and instead submitted the
case for decision.
5

The RTC acquitted Tingchuy for lack of evidence to prove his guilt, but convicted herein
petitioners as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused GAUDENCIO FERNANDO and
RUDY ESTORNINOS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and are hereby
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as
minimum to SIX (6) YEARS of prisioncorreccional as maximum, to pay fine of P6,000.00
each and to pay the cost.
For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused WARREN TINGCHUY beyond
reasonable doubt, he is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
The VHS tapes and the nine (9) magazines utilized as evidence in this case are hereby
confiscated in favor of the government.
SO ORDERED.
6

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. But the appellate courtlatter affirmed in
toto the decision of the trial court, as follows,
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error on the part of the trial court, the decision
appealed from isAFFIRMED IN TOTO.
Costs against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
7

Hence the instant petition assigning the following errors:
I. Respondent court erred in convicting petitioner Fernando even if he was not present at
the time of the raid
II. Respondent erred in convicting petitioner Estorninos who was not doing anything illegal
at the time of the raid.
8

Simply, the issue in this case is whether the appellate court erred in affirming the
petitioners conviction.
Petitioners contend that the prosecution failed to prove that at the time of the search,
they were selling pornographic materials. Fernando contends that since he was not
charged as the owner of an establishment selling obscene materials, the prosecution must
prove that he was present during the raid and that he was selling the said materials.
Moreover, he contends that the appellate courts reason for convicting him, on a
presumption of continuing ownership shown by an expired mayors permit, has no
sufficient basis since the prosecution failed to prove his ownership of the establishment.
Estorninos, on the other hand, insists that he was not an attendant in Music Fair, nor did
he introduce himself so.
9

The Solicitor General counters that owners of establishments selling obscene publications
are expressly held liable under Article 201, and petitioner Fernandos ownership was
sufficiently proven. As the owner, according to the Solicitor General, Fernando was
naturally a seller of the prohibited materials and liable under the Information. The Solicitor
General also maintains that Estorninos was identified by Barangay Chairperson Socorro
Lipana as the store attendant, thus he was likewise liable.
10

At the outset, we note that the trial court gave petitionersthem the opportunity to adduce
present their evidence to disprove refute the prosecutions evidence.
11
. Instead, they
waived their right to present evidence and opted to submitted the case for
decision.
a1

12
The trial court therefore resolved the case on the basis of prosecutions
evidence against the petitioners.
As obscenity is an unprotected speech which the State has the right to regulate, the State
in pursuing its mandate to protect, as parenspatriae, the public from obscene, immoral
and indecent materials must justify the regulation or limitation.
One such regulation is Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. To be held liable, the
prosecution must prove that (a) the materials, publication, picture or literature are
obscene; and (b) the offender sold, exhibited, published or gave away such
materials.
13
Necessarily, that the confiscated materials are obscene must be proved.
Almost a century has passed since the Court first attempted to define obscenity in People
v. Kottinger.
14
There the Court defined obscenity as something which is offensive to
chastity, decency or delicacy. The test to determine the existence of obscenity is, whether
the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose
minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other
article charged as being obscene may fall.
15
Another test according to Kottinger is "that
12

which shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an
indecency."
16
But, Kottinger hastened to say that whether a picture is obscene or indecent
must depend upon the circumstances of the case, and that ultimately, the question is to
be decided by the judgment of the aggregate sense of the community reached by it.
17

Thereafter, the Court in People v. Go Pin
18
and People v. Padan y Alova, et al.,
19
involving a
prosecution under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, laid the tests which did little to
clearly draw the fine lines of obscenity.
In People v. Go Pin, the Court said:
If such pictures, sculptures and paintings are shown in art exhibits and art galleries for the
cause of art, to be viewed and appreciated by people interested in art, there would be no
offense committed. However, the pictures here in question were used not exactly for arts
sake but rather for commercial purposes. In other words, the supposed artistic qualities of
said pictures were being commercialized so that the cause of art was of secondary or
minor importance. Gain and profit would appear to have been the main, if not the
exclusive consideration in their exhibition; and it would not be surprising if the persons
who went to see those pictures and paid entrance fees for the privilege of doing so, were
not exactly artists and persons interested in art and who generally go to art exhibitions
and galleries to satisfy and improve their artistic tastes, but rather people desirous of
satisfying their morbid curiosity and taste, and lust, and for love [of] excitement, including
the youth who because of their immaturity are not in a position to resist and shield
themselves from the ill and perverting effects of these pictures.
20

People v. Padan y Alova, et al. in a way reaffirmed the standards set in Go Pin but with its
own test of "redeeming feature." The Court therein said that:
[A]n actual exhibition of the sexual act, preceded by acts of lasciviousness, can have no
redeeming feature. In it, there is no room for art. One can see nothing in it but clear and
unmitigated obscenity, indecency, and an offense to public morals, inspiring and causing
as it does, nothing but lust and lewdness, and exerting a corrupting influence specially on
the youth of the land.
21

Notably, the Court in the later case of Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak,
22
involving motion
pictures, still applied the "contemporary community standards" of Kottinger but departed
from the rulings of Kottinger, Go Pin and Padan y Alova in that the Court measures
obscenity in terms of the "dominant theme" of the material taken as a "whole" rather than
in isolated passages.
Later, in Pita v. Court of Appeals, concerning alleged pornographic publications, the Court
recognized thatKottinger failed to afford a conclusive definition of obscenity, and that
both Go Pin and Padan y Alova raised more questions than answers such as, whether the
absence or presence of artists and persons interested in art and who generally go to art
exhibitions and galleries to satisfy and improve their artistic tastes, determine what art is;
or that if they find inspiration in the exhibitions, whether such exhibitions cease to be
obscene.
23
Go Pin andPadan y Alova gave too much latitude for judicial arbitrament, which
has permitted ad lib of ideas and "two-centsworths" among judges as to what is obscene
or what is art.
24

The Court in Pita also emphasized the difficulty of the question and pointed out how hazy
jurisprudence is on obscenity and how jurisprudence actually failed to settle questions on
the matter. Significantly, the dynamism of human civilization does not help at all. It is
evident that individual tastes develop, adapt to wide-ranging influences, and keep in step
with the rapid advance of civilization.
25
It seems futile at this point to formulate a perfect
definition of obscenity that shall apply in all cases.
There is no perfect definition of "obscenity" but the latest word is that of Miller v.
California which established basic guidelines, to wit: (a) whether to the average person,
applying contemporary standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work,
taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
26
But, it would
be a serious misreading ofMiller to conclude that the trier of facts has the unbridled
discretion in determining what is "patently offensive."
27
No one will be subject to
prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or
describe patently offensive "hard core" sexual conduct.
28
Examples included (a) patently
offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted,
actual or simulated; and (b) patently offensive representations or descriptions of
masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.
29
What remains
clear is that obscenity is an issue proper for judicial determination and should be treated
on a case to case basis and on the judges sound discretion.
In this case, the trial court found the confiscated materials obscene and the Court of
Appeals affirmed such findings. The trial court in ruling that the confiscated materials are
obscene, reasoned as follows:
Are the magazines and VHS tapes confiscated by the raiding team obscene or offensive to
morals? . . .
Pictures of men and women in the nude doing the sexual act appearing in the nine (9)
confiscated magazines namely Dalaga, Penthouse, Swank, Erotic, Rave, Playhouse, Gallery
and two (2) issues of QUI are offensive to morals and are made and shown not for the sake
of art but rather for commercial purposes, that is gain and profit as the exclusive
consideration in their exhibition. The pictures in the magazine exhibited indecent and
immoral scenes and actsThe exhibition of the sexual act in their magazines is but a clear
and unmitigated obscenity, indecency and an offense to public morals, inspiringlust and
lewdness, exerting a corrupting influence especially on the youth. (Citations omitted)
The VHS tapes also [exhibit] nude men and women doing the sexual intercourse. The tape
entitled "KahitsaPangarap Lang" with Myra Manibog as the actress shows the naked body
of the actress. The tape exhibited indecent and immoral scenes and acts. Her dancing
13

movements excited the sexual instinct of her male audience. The motive may be innocent,
but the performance was revolting and shocking to good minds...
In one (1) case the Supreme Court ruled:
Since the persons who went to see those pictures and paid entrance fees were usually not
artists or persons interested in art to satisfy and inspire their artistic tastes but persons
who are desirous of satisfying their morbid curiosity, taste and lust and for [love] of
excitement, including the youth who because of their immaturity are not in a position to
resist and shield themselves from the ill and perverting effects of the pictures, the display
of such pictures for commercial purposes is a violation of Art. 201. If those pictures were
shown in art exhibits and art galleries for the cause of art, to be viewed and appreciated by
people interested in art, there would be no offense committed (People vs. Go Pin, 97 Phil
418).
[B]ut this is not so in this case.
30

Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the trial court are accorded great
respect, even by this Court, unless such findings are patently unsupported by the evidence
on record or the judgment itself is based on misapprehension of facts.
31
In this case,
petitioners neither presented contrary evidence nor questioned the trial courts findings.
There is also no showing that the trial court, in finding the materials obscene, was
arbitrary.
Did petitioners participate in the distribution and exhibition of obscene materials?
We emphasize that mere possession of obscene materials, without intention to sell,
exhibit, or give them away, is not punishable under Article 201, considering the purpose of
the law is to prohibit the dissemination of obscene materials to the public. The offense in
any of the forms under Article 201 is committed only when there is publicity.
32
The law
does not require that a person be caught in the act of selling, giving away or exhibiting
obscene materials to be liable, for as long as the said materials are offered for sale,
displayed or exhibited to the public. In the present case, we find that petitioners are
engaged in selling and exhibiting obscene materials.
Notably, the subject premises of the search warrant was the Gaudencio E. Fernando Music
Fair, named after petitioner Fernando.
33
The mayors permit was under his name. Even his
bail bond shows that Hhe lives in the same place.
34
Moreover, the mayors permit dated
August 8, 1996, shows that he is the owner/operator of the store.
35
While the mayors
permit had already expired, it does not negate the fact that Fernando owned and operated
the establishment. It would be absurd to make his failure to renew his business permit and
illegal operation a shield from prosecution of an unlawful act. Furthermore, when he
preferred not to present contrary evidence, the things which he possessed were
presumptively his.
36

Petitioner Estorninos is likewise liable as the store attendant actively engaged in selling
and exhibiting the obscene materials. Prosecution witness Police Inspector Tababan, who
led the PNP-CIDG NCR that conducted the search, identified him as the store attendant
upon whom the search warrant was served.
37
Tababan had no motive for testifying falsely
against Estorninos and we uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of his
duties. Lastly, this Court accords great respect to and treats with finality the findings of the
trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses, absent any palpable error or
arbitrariness in their findings.
38
In our view, no reversible error was committed by the
appellate court as well as the trial court in finding the herein petitioners guilty as charged.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 21, 2003 and the Resolution dated September 2,
2003, of the Court of Appeals affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 21, in Criminal Case No. 99-176582 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Republic Act No. 9995
AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM,
PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism
Act of 2009".
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State values the dignity and privacy of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Toward this end, the State shall
penalize acts that would destroy the honor, dignity and integrity of a person.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the term:
(a) "Broadcast" means to make public, by any means, a visual image with the intent that it
be viewed by a person or persons.
(b) "Capture" with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by
any means, or broadcast.
(c) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast.
(d) "Photo or video voyeurism" means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a
person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an
image of the private area of a person or persons without the latter's consent, under
circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the
act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo
or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD,
internet, cellular phones and similar means or device without the written consent of the
person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage
of same was given by such person's.
14

(e) "Private area of a person" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area,
buttocks or female breast of an individual.
(f) "Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy"
means believe that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an
image or a private area of the person was being captured; or circumstances in which a
reasonable person would believe that a private area of the person would not be visible to
the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful for any person:
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act
or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the
naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the
consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have
a reasonable expectation of privacy;
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or
recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration;
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording
of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or
broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other
similar means or device.
The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent
to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Any
person who violates this provision shall be liable for photo or video voyeurism as defined
herein.
Section 5. Penalties. - The penalty of imprisonment of not less that three (3) years but not
more than seven (7) years and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), or both, at
the discretion of the court shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of violating
Section 4 of this Act.
If the violator is a juridical person, its license or franchise shall be automatically be deemed
revoked and the persons liable shall be the officers thereof including the editor and
reporter in the case of print media, and the station manager, editor and broadcaster in the
case of a broadcast media.
If the offender is a public officer or employee, or a professional, he/she shall be
administratively liable.
If the offender is an alien, he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after serving
his/her sentence and payment of fines.
Section 6. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or
punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the court, to use
the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the
crime of photo or video voyeurism: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued
or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is
about to be committed, and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction
of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such, crime.
Section 7. Inadmissibility of Evidence. - Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof,
obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections shall not be
admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation.1avvphi1
Section 8. Separability Clause. - If any provision or part hereof is held invalid or
unconstitutional, the remaining provisions not affected thereby shall remain valid and
subsisting.
Section 9. Repealing Clause. - Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order,
letter of instruction , administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.
Section 10. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete
publication in the Official Gazette or in two(2) newspapers of general circulation.
ESTABLISHING AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR THE CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF
MENDICANCY, PROVIDING PENALTIES, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the promotion of social justice and protection of life, property and dignity of
the citizenry in endangered by rampant mendicancy;
WHEREAS, mendicancy breeds crime, creates traffic hazards, endangers health, and
exposes mendicants to indignities and degradation; and
WHEREAS, there is an immediate need to provide appropriate services to enable
mendicants to meet their basic needs and develop self-reliance;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree:
15

Section 1. Title And Scope Of The Decree. This Decree shall be known as the Mendicancy
Law of 1978. It shall apply to all mendicants, and exploited infants or children who are 8
years old and below, minors found begging and covered by Presidential Decree No. 603
and parents of exploited infants and children criminally liable under Article 59 and 60 of
Presidential Decree No. 603.
Section 2. Purpose. This Decree shall be interpreted so as to, among others:
a. Prevent the commission of mendicancy;
b. Prevent the exploitation of infants and children through mendicancy and provide
habilitative services for those already exploited or in immediate danger of exploitation;
and
c. Promote the rehabilitation of minors found begging and mendicants by providing an
integrated developmental package of preventive, habilitative interceptive, remedial,
and/or rehabilitative services.
Section 3. Definition Of Terms. As used in this Decree, the following shall, unless the
context otherwise requires, be construed thus:
a. "Mendicant" refers to any person, except those enumerated in Section 4 of this Decree,
who has no visible and legal means of support, or lawful employment and who is physically
able to work but neglects to apply himself to some lawful calling and instead uses begging
as a means of living.
b. "Exploited Infant" or "Child" refers to an infant or child 8 years and below who is used in
begging or one who accompanies a habitual vagrant or beggar.
c "Habitual Mendicant" refers to one who has been convicted of mendicancy under this
Decree two or more times.
d. "Duly Licensed Child Placement Agency" or "Individual" is an institution or person
licensed by the Department of Social Services and Development to assume the care,
custody, protection and maintenance of children for placement in any child-caring
institution or home under the care and custody of any person for purposes of adoption,
guardianship or foster care.
e. Integrated Developmental Package of Services include the following:
1. Preventive services to measures that forestall the occurrence of situations identified as
contributory to mendicancy;
2. Habilitative services refer to measures which provide environmental or socio-economic
conditions for the exploited infant or child which maximize possibilities and opportunities
for the enjoyment of satisfactory equality of life before the formation of undesirable
attitudes and values or the onset of conditions most conducive to mendicancy;
3. Interceptive services are measures which channel or direct the growth potential and
productive energy of the mendicant infant, child, youth or adult to offset the effect of
factors contributing to mendicancy;
4. Remedial services refer to measures intended to meet the basic needs and improve
living condition of the mendicant; and
5. Rehabilitative services refer to medical, social, educational, psychological and vocational
measures to develop and/or restore the mendicant to the fullest state of well-being or
economic usefulness of which he is capable, and to engage in a gainful occupation.
Section 4. Apprehension Of And Services For Persons Found Begging. Any infants or child 8
years old and below who is found begging or is being utilized by a mendicant for purposes
of begging shall be apprehended as a neglected child under Article 141 of PD 603 and shall
be committed to the custody and care of the Department of Social Services and
Development or to any duly licensed child placement agency or individual.
Any minor over 9 years of age under 15 found begging or is being utilized for purposes of
begging and who acted without discernment shall be apprehended as a neglected child
under Article 141 of Presidential Decree No. 603 and shall be committed to the custody
and care of the Department of Social Services and Development or to any duly licensed
placement agency or individual.
Any minor over 9 years of age and under 15 who is found begging or is being utilized for
the purpose of begging and who acted with discernment shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3, Title VIII of Presidential Decree No. 603.
Any person not otherwise covered in the preceding paragraph of this Section who is found
begging and who is physically or mentally incapable of gainful occupation shall be provided
the integrated package of services by the Department of Social Services and Development,
the Welfare units of local governments and other cooperating agencies.
Section 5. Criminal Liability. A mendicant as defined in Paragraph (a) Section 3 hereof,
shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding P500.00 or by imprisonment
for a period not exceeding 2 years or both at the discretion of the court.
A habitual mendicant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding P1,000.00 or by
imprisonment for a period not exceeding 4 years or both at the discretion of the court.
Parents of exploited infants or minors under Section 4 of this Decree shall be proceeded
against in accordance with Articles 59 and 60 of Presidential Decree No. 603, unless they
are themselves mendicants.
Any person who abets mendicancy by giving alms directly to mendicants, exploited infants
and minors on public roads, sidewalks, parks and bridges shall be punished by a fine nor
exceeding P20.00.
16

Section 6. Information Program. The Department of Public Information shall conduct a
nationwide educational and information program on the Mendicancy Law and educate the
public to contribute only to lawful fund raising projects and prevent the community in
giving alms except through organized agencies, subject to such rules and regulations as the
Secretary of the Department of Public Information may promulgate.
Section 7. Local Programs And Facilities. Local governments shall provide socio-economic
programs and establish operating units including reception and action centers, sheltered
workshops, constitute homes and other facilities for mendicants, subject to such rules and
regulations as the Secretary of the Department of Local Government and Community
Development may promulgate.
Section 8. Health Needs. The Department of Health shall provide the necessary measures
in meeting the health needs of mendicants, subject to such rules and regulations as the
Secretary of the Department of Health may promulgate.
Section 9. Law Enforcement. The Department of National Defense shall provide the
necessary law enforcement and other related services for the implementation of this
Decree, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Department of
National Defense may promulgate.
Section 10. Integrated Network Of Services. The Department of Social Services and
Development shall provide an integrated network of appropriate services to exploited
infants and children 8 years old and below as well as mendicant minors and adult
mendicants and shall coordinate the services related to the implementation of this Decree,
subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Department of Social Services
and Development may promulgate.
Section 11. Appropriations. The sum of two million pesos (P2,000,000) is hereby
authorized to be appropriated out of any funds in the National Treasury that are not
otherwise appropriated, in order to support the activities under this Decree.
Section 12. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations which are
inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 13. SeparabilityOf Provisions. If for any reason any section of provision of this
Decree is declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions thereof
which are not affected thereby shall continue in full force and effect.
Section 14. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately.
and seventy-eight.

Complete Title Vi Cases and Special Laws

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complete Title Vi Cases and Special Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

You might also like