G.R. No. L-5584

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN PANGANIBAN, defendant-appellant.

October 29, 1910

FACTS: Juan Panganiban was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Rizal for violating Act No. 1696. He appealed his conviction. The trial court found that from January 7 to March 16, 1908, Panganiban knowingly and willfully exposed to public view a tablet or sign on a post on a public street in Antipolo.

The sign was quadrangular, approximately one meter long and half a meter wide. It featured a triangle containing a rising sun and three stars, bordered by red and blue stripes with a white space between them. The sign also bore the inscription “UNION NACIONALISTA PARTY In commemoration of the mass meeting held, Sunday the 27th of January, 1907, at Antipolo by the people of the town for the purpose of expressing their views on the question of the capacity and ability of the Filipino people to maintain a free and independent government.”

The Court noted that the flag used by insurgents during the late insurrection also had a quadrangular shape, with a triangle enclosing a rising sun and three stars at the top, and a background divided into red and blue. While the painting on Panganiban’s sign was not an exact reproduction of the insurgent flag, it was an exact reproduction of its most prominent features (triangle, sun, and three stars). The Court found this design was intentionally done to avoid legal consequences but was meant to produce the same effect on the public’s mind as the actual insurgent flag, making it difficult to distinguish. Its purpose was to excite people and stir up hatred against the constituted authorities, which Act No. 1696 aimed to prohibit.

ISSUE: Whether exposing to public view a sign that reproduces the most prominent features of the insurgent flag, even if not an exact replica, constitutes a violation of Act No. 1696, which prohibits the display of “any flag, banner, emblem, or device used during the late insurrection… to designate or identify those in armed rebellion against the United States.”

RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Juan Panganiban.

The Court held that although the tablet or sign was not an exact reproduction of the insurgent flag, it faithfully reproduced its most prominent features (the triangle with the rising sun and three stars). This was intentionally done to circumvent the law while still producing the same effect on the public, namely, to excite people and stir up hatred against the constituted authorities. The Court emphasized that the intention to cause injury (by stirring up disaffection) was manifest, and the painting was amply sufficient to achieve this purpose.

The purpose of Act No. 1696 was to prohibit the display of such signs, banners, or devices, and it was enacted by the legislative body with knowledge of the existing conditions. The act does not require an exact copy of the prohibited flag or device; rather, if the displayed item is designed and sufficient to produce the same seditious effect as the original, it falls within the scope of the statute.

Therefore, Panganiban’s actions constituted a violation of Section 1 of Act No. 1696. The Court affirmed the lower court’s sentence of a P500 fine, adding that in case of insolvency, the defendant would suffer subsidiary imprisonment.