Navigating the Murky Waters of Obscenity Laws in the Philippines
n
What constitutes obscenity under Philippine law? This question is far from straightforward, impacting not only artists and publishers but also everyday businesses. The Supreme Court case of Fernando v. Court of Appeals provides crucial insights into how Philippine courts define obscenity and determine liability for those involved in selling or exhibiting materials deemed immoral. This case underscores the stringent standards and potential legal repercussions for distributing content that offends public morals, offering vital lessons for businesses and individuals alike.
nn
G.R. NO. 159751, December 06, 2006
nn
INTRODUCTION
n
Imagine a bookstore owner facing criminal charges for selling magazines deemed ‘obscene.’ This isn’t a hypothetical scenario; it’s the reality underscored by the case of Gaudencio E. Fernando and Rudy Estorninos. In the Philippines, Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code criminalizes the creation, distribution, and exhibition of obscene materials. This law aims to protect public morals, but its application often treads a fine line between censorship and regulation. This case dives deep into the complexities of defining obscenity and establishing liability, particularly for business owners and employees involved in the distribution chain.
n
Gaudencio Fernando, owner of Music Fair, and his store attendant Rudy Estorninos, were convicted of violating Article 201 after police raided their store and confiscated magazines and VHS tapes deemed pornographic. The central legal question: Did the prosecution sufficiently prove that the confiscated materials were indeed obscene and that Fernando and Estorninos were liable for their sale and exhibition?
nn
LEGAL CONTEXT: ARTICLE 201 AND THE ELUSIVE DEFINITION OF OBSCENITY
n
At the heart of this case lies Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, titled “Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows.” This law penalizes those who “sell, give away, or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculptures, or literature which are offensive to morals.” The ambiguity, however, lies in the term “obscene.” The Revised Penal Code itself does not provide a clear-cut definition, leaving it to jurisprudence to interpret its scope.
n
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code states:
n
“ART. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows. – The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon: … 3. Those who shall sell, give away, or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculptures, or literature which are offensive to morals.”
n
Philippine courts have grappled with defining obscenity for nearly a century. Early jurisprudence, like in People v. Kottinger, defined obscenity as something “offensive to chastity, decency or delicacy,” focusing on its tendency to “deprave or corrupt” susceptible minds. This “Kottinger test” emphasized the “aggregate sense of the community” in judging obscenity.
n
Later cases like People v. Go Pin and People v. Padan y Alova introduced the element of “commercial purpose” versus “artistic purpose,” suggesting that the context of exhibition matters. However, these definitions remained subjective and somewhat vague.
n
Recognizing the shortcomings of previous definitions, the Supreme Court in Pita v. Court of Appeals acknowledged the influence of the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. California. The “Miller test” provides a three-pronged guideline for obscenity:
n
- n
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
- Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
n
n
n
n
While the Philippine Supreme Court has referenced the Miller test, it has also maintained that obscenity is ultimately a matter of judicial determination on a case-by-case basis, relying on the judge’s “sound discretion.”
nn
CASE BREAKDOWN: RAID, CONVICTION, AND APPEAL
n
The story of Fernando and Estorninos began with police surveillance of “Gaudencio E. Fernando Music Fair” based on reports of pornographic material sales. Acting on this, police obtained a search warrant and raided the store on May 5, 1999. Rudy Estorninos, identified as the store attendant, was present during the raid. Police confiscated numerous VHS tapes and magazines deemed pornographic.
n
Fernando, Estorninos, and another individual, Warren Tingchuy, were charged with violating Article 201. After pleading not guilty, trial commenced. The prosecution presented evidence including the confiscated materials and testimonies from the raiding police officers and a barangay chairperson who identified Estorninos as the store attendant.
n
Crucially, after the prosecution rested its case, the defense opted not to present any evidence, effectively submitting the case for decision based solely on the prosecution’s evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Tingchuy but convicted Fernando and Estorninos, sentencing them to imprisonment and fines.
n
The RTC reasoned that the confiscated magazines and VHS tapes, depicting “nude men and women doing the sexual act,” were “offensive to morals” and were sold for “commercial purposes…gain and profit.” The court emphasized that these materials were not for art but to satisfy “morbid curiosity, taste and lust.”
n
Fernando and Estorninos appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that Fernando was not present during the raid and Estorninos was not doing anything illegal. However, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto, finding no reversible error.
n
The Supreme Court, in this petition, upheld the lower courts’ decisions. The Supreme Court highlighted several key points in its reasoning:
n
Firstly, the Court reiterated the principle that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally accorded great respect. Since the petitioners presented no evidence to contradict the prosecution, the Court relied on the established facts.
n
Secondly, the Court affirmed the obscenity of the confiscated materials. Quoting the trial court’s assessment, the Supreme Court implicitly agreed that the materials appealed to prurient interests and lacked artistic or other redeeming value:
n
“Pictures of men and women in the nude doing the sexual act appearing in the nine (9) confiscated magazines… are offensive to morals and are made and shown not for the sake of art but rather for commercial purposes… The exhibition of the sexual act in their magazines is but a clear and unmitigated obscenity, indecency and an offense to public morals…”
n
Thirdly, the Court addressed the liability of both petitioners. For Fernando, ownership of “Gaudencio E. Fernando Music Fair,” evidenced by the store name, bail bond address, and an expired mayor’s permit, was deemed sufficient to establish his involvement in the business and, consequently, liability for the obscene materials sold there. The Court stated, “While the mayor’s permit had already expired, it does not negate the fact that Fernando owned and operated the establishment.”
n
For Estorninos, his identification as the store attendant by a prosecution witness, coupled with the presumption of regularity in police procedures, solidified his liability as someone “actively engaged in selling and exhibiting the obscene materials.”
nn
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING YOUR BUSINESS FROM OBSCENITY CHARGES
n
This case serves as a stark reminder for businesses involved in media distribution, entertainment, and even retail, to exercise extreme caution regarding content that could be construed as obscene. The ruling highlights that:
n
- n
- Ownership Matters: Business owners bear significant responsibility for the content sold or exhibited in their establishments, even if they are not directly involved in every sale.
- Employee Actions Reflect on the Business: The actions of employees, like Estorninos as the store attendant, can directly implicate the business and its owners.
n
n