G.R. No. L-5584 - OCTOBER 1910 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-5584October 29, 1910 United States vs. Juan Panganiban G.R. No. L-5749October 21, 1910 United States vs. Ponciano Esmedia, et al. G.R. No. L-6080October 18, 1910 Marcelo Susara vs. Mariano Martinez G.R. No. L-5922October 18, 1910 Carlos Martell Ong vs. Carloto Jariol, et al. G.R. No. L-5934October 17, 1910 United States vs. Moro Labai G.R. No. L-5867October 17, 1910 United States vs. Manobo Liwakas G.R. No. L-5692October 17, 1910 United States vs. Anselmo Empinado G.R. No. L-5631October 17, 1910 Municipality of Catbalogan vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. L-5627October 17, 1910 United States vs. Tan Chian, et al. G.R. No. L-5644October 13, 1910 Manila Railway Company vs. Miguel Fabie, et al. G.R. No. L-5775October 10, 1910 In re: Intestate Estate of Jose M. Reyes Buenaventura P. Galvez vs. La Compañia Maritima G.R. No. L-5770October 10, 1910 Teodoro R. Yangco vs. City of Manila G.R. No. L-5559October 7, 1910 Anacleto Bernardino, et al. vs. Provincial Governor of Cavite, et al. G.R. No. L-6399October 6, 1910 Jacinto Davis vs. Director of Prisons G.R. No. L-5681October 6, 1910 Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Jose Felix Martinez, et al. G.R. No. L-5465October 5, 1910 Andres Serrano, et al. vs. Ponciano Reyes G.R. No. L-5458October 5, 1910 Bonifacio Pobre, et al. vs. Ismael Blanco G.R. No. L-5853October 4, 1910 Felix Angao vs. Nicolas Clavano The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Juan Panganiban United States vs. Ponciano Esmedia, et al. Marcelo Susara vs. Mariano Martinez Carlos Martell Ong vs. Carloto Jariol, et al. United States vs. Moro Labai United States vs. Manobo Liwakas United States vs. Anselmo Empinado Municipality of Catbalogan vs. Director of Lands United States vs. Tan Chian, et al. Manila Railway Company vs. Miguel Fabie, et al. In re: Intestate Estate of Jose M. Reyes Buenaventura P. Galvez vs. La Compañia Maritima Teodoro R. Yangco vs. City of Manila Anacleto Bernardino, et al. vs. Provincial Governor of Cavite, et al. Jacinto Davis vs. Director of Prisons Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Jose Felix Martinez, et al. Andres Serrano, et al. vs. Ponciano Reyes Bonifacio Pobre, et al. vs. Ismael Blanco Felix Angao vs. Nicolas Clavano The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-5584 October 29, 1910
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JUAN PANGANIBAN,defendant-appellant.
Teodoro M. Kalaw, for appellant.
Attorney-General Villamor, for appellee.
TRENT,J.:
The defendant in this case, Juan Panganiban, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal of having violated the provisions of Act No. 1696, and sentenced to pay a fine of P500 and the costs. He appealed.
The trial court found that the defendant did knowingly and wilfully expose, or cause to be exposed, to public view, by fastening on a post on the side of a public street in the town of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, and about 7 meters form his own house, from about the 7th of January, 1908, until about the 16th of March of the same year, the tablet or sign which forms the basis of this action. This finding of fact is fully sustained by the proofs presented and the only question to be determined is whether or not the exposing to public view in this manner of the sign or tablet constitutes a violation of law.
The tablet or sign was a little over a meter long and almost a half a meter wide and quadrangular in shape. On one end there was painted within a triangle the rising sun and three stars. Around its border and also around the triangle there was a red and blue stripe, with a white space between them. Nearly all of the part not taken up by the triangle and the red and blue border was covered by the following 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 flag used by the insurgents during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands was quadrangular in shape. At the top end there was a triangle inclosing a rising sun and three stars. The whole background below the triangle was divided lengthwise into two equal part, one painted or colored red and the other blue. The sun within the triangle represented a rising republic and the three stars the three great subdivisions of the Philippine Archipelago, viz, Luzon, Mindanao, and the Visayas.
As will be seen from the above description, the painting on the tablet or sign was not an exact reproduction of the insurgent flag, but it was an exact reproduction of the most prominent features; that is, the triangle with the representation of the sun and three stars. In the preparation of this tablet an exact reproduction of the insurgent flag was not made. This was done intentionally in order to avoid the consequences. But the sign as painted, including the inscription, would produce the same effect upon the minds of the people as it would had it been an exact reproduction of the flag used by the insurgents in the late rebellion. In the place where it was exposed it would have been difficult to distinguished the difference between it and the flag itself. The exposing to public view of such a sign or painting was for the express purpose of exciting the people and stirring up hatred in their minds against the constituted authorities, and the tablet was so designed as to accomplish these purpose. To prohibit the display of such signs was one of the principal objects in the enactment of Act No. 1696. The legislative body knew the conditions existing in the country and wisely prohibited the further display of such signs, banners, or devices. The very first section of that Act (No. 1696) provides as follows:1awph!l.net
Any person who shall expose, or cause or permit to be exposed, to public view on his own premises, or who shall expose, or cause to be exposed, to public view, either on his own premises, or elsewhere, any flag, banner, emblem, or device used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate or identify those in armed rebellion against the United States . . . shall be punished. . . .
In the case of the United Statesvs. Go Chico (14 Phil. Rep., 128) the defendant displayed in one of the widows of his store a number of medallions, in the form of small buttons, upon the faces of which were imprinted in miniature a picture of Emilio Aguinaldo and the flag or banner or device used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands. The court held that these acts constituted a violation of section 1 of Act No. 1696,supra. It is true that in this case an exact copy of the flag or banner or device was imprinted upon the faces of these buttons, whereas in the case at bar an exact copy of the flag or banner or device was not painted upon the sign, but this was not of sufficient importance to bring it without the statute. The intention to cause injury is manifest, and the painting is amply sufficient for this purpose.
The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed; provided however, that in case of insolvency in the payment of the fine the defendant be condemned to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment. The defendant will pay the costs.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Moreland, JJ., concur.