GR L 7491; (August, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7491; August 8, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GO PIN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant-appellant, Go Pin, an alien and Chinese citizen, was charged in the City of Manila with violating Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code for exhibiting a large number of allegedly indecent and/or immoral one-real 16-millimeter films at the Globe Arcade, a recreation center. Initially, he pleaded not guilty but was later allowed to change his plea to guilty. Notwithstanding the guilty plea, the trial court had the films projected and viewed them to evaluate their decency and morality. After viewing, the court noted only a slight degree of obscenity, indecency, and immorality in the films. Considering the guilty plea and its evaluation, the trial court sentenced Go Pin to six months and one day of prision correccional, a fine of P300 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs. Go Pin appealed, not denying guilt but contending that given the slight degree of obscenity noted, the prison sentence should be eliminated.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in imposing a prison sentence in addition to a fine, considering the circumstances of the case, particularly the slight degree of obscenity, indecency, and immorality found in the exhibited films.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court agreed with the appellant’s counsel that paintings, pictures, or sculptures of nudes presented for art’s sake in appropriate venues like art exhibits are not offensive. However, it distinguished the present case, noting that the pictures (films) were used not for art but primarily for commercial purposes and gain, exhibited in a recreation center where patrons, including susceptible youth, paid entrance fees likely out of morbid curiosity rather than artistic appreciation. The penalty imposed was within the range provided by Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court found that the trial court exercised sound discretion in imposing the sentence, considering both the guilty plea and the nature of the exhibition, and saw no justification to modify it. The recommendation of the Solicitor General for deportation proceedings was noted but not acted upon, as the Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s discretion.