G.R. No. 47720 ; February 28, 1941
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. FIDEL EXCONDE, acusado-apelante.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Fidel Exconde, was found guilty of violating Act No. 2580 , as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 201 . He was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment, a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The case stemmed from his involvement with a four-page pamphlet titled “The Bukidnon Defender,” which appeared only on two occasions in Bukidnon: October 16 and 30, 1938. The pamphlet was published to support the candidacy of Bienvenido Sanvictores and criticize Manuel Fortich in the 1938 elections for National Assembly Representative. It had no subscribers and was distributed personally by the appellant and others. While the appellant claimed he was not the one who caused the pamphlet to be printed, he tolerated his name appearing as its editor because he was the President of the Committee organized to work for Sanvictores’ candidacy. It was undisputed that the appellant did not submit the sworn statement required by Commonwealth Act No. 201 .

ISSUE

Whether the publication “The Bukidnon Defender” is a newspaper, magazine, or periodical publication as contemplated under Commonwealth Act No. 201 , such that its director, editor, manager, or owner is required to submit the sworn statement to the Director of Posts.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed judgment, acquitted the appellant, and ordered the cancellation of his bail bond. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General’s position that the proven facts did not constitute a violation of the law. The Court held that “The Bukidnon Defender” was not a newspaper, magazine, or periodical publication of the nature enumerated in the law, for which the prior submission of a sworn statement to the Director of Posts is a prerequisite. Only those publications that are issued or distributed regularly—daily, weekly, monthly, or annually—possess the character of newspapers, magazines, or periodicals under the said Act. Citing legal authority, the Court defined a newspaper as “a publication in sheet form, intended for general circulation, published regularly at short intervals, and containing intelligence of current events of general interest.” The publication in question appeared only occasionally, without regularity or fixed intervals. In this sense, it was akin to a simple book or a handbill, for whose publication or distribution the law does not require the formality of a prior sworn statement submitted to the Director of Posts. Therefore, the acts imputed to the appellant did not constitute a violation of the law.