U.S. v. Go Chico G.R. No.

4963, September 15, 1909 FACTS: On or about August 4, 1908, appellant Go

Chico displayed on the window of his store, No 89 Calle Rosario, medallions in form of small buttons,
upon which were faces of Emilio Aguinaldo, and the flag or banner or device used during the late
insurrection of the Philippine Islands to designate the identify those in armed insurrection against the
United States. Prior to the day aforementioned, appellant had purchased the stock of goods in said
store, of which the medallions formed part, at a public sale made under authority of the sheriff of the
city of Manila. On August 4, appellant was arranging his stocks for the purpose of displaying them to the
public, placing them in his showcase and in one of the windows of his store. The appellant states he was
ignorant of the law against the display of the medallions and adds that he had no corrupt intention. He
was charged in violation of Sec. 1 of Art. 1696 of the Philippine Commission which provides: Sec. 1 – Any
person who shall expose, or cause or permit to be exposed, to public view on his own premise, or who
shall expose, or cause to be exposed, to public view, either on his own premises or elsewhere, any flag,
banner, emblem, or device used during the late insurrection of the Philippine Islands to designate or
identify those in armed rebellion against the United States, or any flag, banner, emblem, or device used
or adopted at any time by the public enemies of the United States in the Philippine islands for the
purposes of public disorder or of rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States in
the Philippine Islands, or any flag, emblem, or device of the Katipunan Society, or which is commonly
known as such, shall be punished by a fine not less than 500 pesos nor more than 5,000 pesos, or by
imprisonment for not less than 3 months nor more than 5 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment,
in the discretion of the court. Go Chico moved to acquit himself on the grounds that (1) criminal intent
must be proven beyond reasonable doubt upon the part of the accused before being convicted and; (2)
the prohibition of the law is directed