Gaudencio Fernando & Rudy Estorninos v.
Court of Appeals Petitioners: Authorities failed to prove that they were selling pornographic
GR No. 159751 ; 6 December 2006 ; Quisimbing, J. ; Obscenity
Petitioner: Gaudencio Fernando & Rudy Estorninos
Respondent: Court of Appeals
Summary: Fernando (owner) and Estorninos (attendant) were in
the business of selling pornographic magazines and videotapes.
PNP CIDG were able to confiscate the pornographic materials and
charged the two under Art. 201 of the RPC. RTC/CA held that they
were guilty for selling such.
Doctrine: The State (with proper justification) may regulate
obscene materials since these are unprotected speech. Under Art.
201 of the RPC, it must proven that such items were in fact obscene
and that they were actually being sold. The SC cited jurisprudence
to define obscenity and found it to be a case-to-case issue.
Facts:
PNP CIDG conducted surveillance on Gaudencio Fernando Music Fair after
allegations that the said establishment sold pornographic and obscene
materials. RTC issued a search warrant against Fernando and upon
conducting the search, the CIDG found copies of New Rave Magazines, IOU
Penthouse Magazine, Hustler International Magazine, and VHS tapes
containing pornographic and obscene images. Another warrant against
Estorninos (store attendant of Music Fair) was issued and executed and
another set of pornographic VHS tapes and magazines were confiscated.
Petitioners and Warren Tingchuy were charged but pleaded not guilty.
After the presentation of the confiscated items as evidence as well as the
testimonies of the policemen and barangay officials as witnesses, the RTC
convicted Fernando and Estorninos but acquitted Tingchuy. The CA
affirmed the RTC decision. Note that the accused waived their right to present
their own evidence (RTC decided based on prosecution’s evidence only).
materials. Since Fernando was not charged as the owner of the store, it must
be proven that he was there at the said store selling the obscene materials.
Estorninos claims that he was not an attendant of the store.
SolGen: Under Art. 201 of the RPC, owners of the stores selling obscene
materials are liable; Fernando’s ownership was proven. Estorninos was
identified by the Barangay Chairperson as the attendant.
Issue:
W/N the State may regulate the sale of pornographic materials? YES.
Ratio:
1. Petitioners were given the chance to present their own evidence but
decided not to do so. (so ok gg sorry na lang kayo di niyo man lang
dinepensahan eh)
2. Obscenity is unprotected speech which the State has the right to
regulate (parens patriae). The State must however justify such
regulation.
3. Under Art. 201, it must be proven that the contested items were a.)
obscene, and b.) for sale.
4. Obscenity as defined in People v. Kottinger (almost a hundred years
ago) as something offensive to chastity, decency, or delicacy. The
test used 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 obscene may fall. Another test is that which shocks the
ordinary or common sense of men as an indecency. These will
depend on the circumstances of the case and is decided by the total
reception of the community which sees it.
5. Other tests (from jurisprudence) state that if such images are used
for commercial purposes which satisfy the curiosity, lust, and love
for excitement of the public and not for artistic interests, then such
are obscene.
6. Overall, the previous discussions on the definition of obscenity have
brought more confusion for the Court. However, the most recent
would be that of Miller v. California which set up guidelines for the
 definition: a.) whether to the average person, applying contemporary
standards would find the work as a whole to appeal to the most
lustful interest, b.) whether the work depicts sexual conduct in an
offensive way, and c.) whether the work as a whole lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Nevertheless,
obscenity should still be treated as a case-to-case issue as the courts
shall decide based on the circumstances of such works.
7. In this case, the magazines had images of people having sex and the
VHS entitled “Kahit sa Pangarap Lang” included footage of people
also having sex. (basta obvious na puro kalaswaan yung content)
8. Even though the petitioners were not caught in the act of selling the
items, the fact that such were offered, displayed, and exhibited for
sale makes them liable under Art. 201.
9. The mayor’s permit issued to Fernando as the owner of the store and
the Police inspector’s testimony against Estorninos (which was held
to be credible due to the lack of ill-motive and due to the
presumption of regularity) show that both were in the business of
selling the pornographic materials.

Ruling:

CA ruling AFFIRMED.