G.R. No.

4963
U.S. v. Go Chico

FACTS:
Defendant-appellant Go Chico is a store owner who was charged with
the violation of Section 1 of Act NO. 1696 which criminalizes the act of
displaying to the public the flag or banner used by the public enemies of the
United States during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands. He was
found guilty of such a violation when he displayed the flag or banner used
during the insurrection in one of the windows in his store. When he was
adjudged by the Court of First Instance to be guilty of the act charged
against him, the defendant-appellant appealed the decision in the Supreme
Court. He contends that the law only penalizes those who will publicly
display the flags or banners that were actually used by the rebels during the
Philippine insurrection.

ISSUE:
Whether the law only penalizes the public display of flags or banners
actually used by the rebels during the insurrection, and not the public
display of their replicas.

RULING:
The court affirmed the decision rendered by the Court of First
Instance, finding Go Chico guilty of violating Sec. 1 of Act No. 1696. The
Court contended that it would be impossible for the Commission to prohibit
the display of the exact flags actually used during the insurrection, but not
their duplicates. To say that the Commission intended such an application of
Act No. 1696 would be nonsense.
In construing the debated provision of the law, the Court saw the need
to resort to the principle that the spirit of the law controls the letter, so that
a thing which is within the intention of a statute is as much within the
statute as if it were within the letter, and a thing which is within the letter of
the statute is not within the statute unless it be within the intention of the
makers, and the statute should be construed as to advance the remedy and
suppress the mischief contemplated by the framers. Pursuant to this
principle, it can be construed that the words "used during the late
insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate or identity those in armed
rebellion against the United States" found in Sec. 1 of Act NO. 1696 means
not only the identical flags actually used in the insurrection, but any flag
which is of that type.
Though penal statutes such as the controverted law, in this case, must
be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused in
case of ambiguity, such construction endeavors to effect substantial justice.
The strict construction of penal statutes should not defeat the obvious
purpose of the legislature.