U.S.

v. Go Chico against the use of the identical banners, devices, or emblems actually
G.R. No. 4963, September 15, 1909 used during the Philippine insurrection by those in armed rebellion
against the United States.
FACTS:
On or about August 4, 1908, appellant Go Chico displayed on the window ISSUE:
of his store, No 89 Calle Rosario, medallions in form of small buttons, WON intent is necessary in crimes punishable by special laws
upon which were faces of Emilio Aguinaldo, and the flag or banner or
device used during the late insurrection of the Philippine Islands to HELD:
designate the identify those in armed insurrection against the United NO.
States. Prior to the day aforementioned, appellant had purchased the In the opinion of this court it is not necessary that the appellant should
stock of goods in said store, of which the medallions formed part, at a have acted with the criminal intent. In many crimes, made such by
public sale made under authority of the sheriff of the city of Manila. On statutory enactment, the intention of the person who commits the crime
August 4, appellant was arranging his stocks for the purpose of displaying is entirely immaterial. If it were not, the statute as a deterrent influence
them to the public, placing them in his showcase and in one of the would be substantially worthless.
windows of his store.
The court ruled that the act alone, irrespective of its motive, constitutes
The appellant states he was ignorant of the law against the display of the the crime. The words used during the late insurrection in the Philippine
medallions and adds that he had no corrupt intention. He was charged in Islands to designate or identify those in armed rebellion against the
violation of Sec. 1 of Art. 1696 of the Philippine Commission which United States mean not only the identical flags actually used in the
provides: insurrection, but any flag which is of that type. The description refers not
Sec. 1 Any person who shall expose, or cause or permit to be to a particular flag, but to a type of flag. The literal interpretation of a
exposed, to public view on his own premise, or who shall expose, statute may lead to an absurdity, or evidently fail to give the real intent of
or cause to be exposed, to public view, either on his own the legislature.
premises or elsewhere, any flag, banner, emblem, or device used
during the late insurrection of the Philippine Islands to designate
or identify those in armed rebellion against the United States, or
any flag, banner, emblem, or device used or adopted at any time
by the public enemies of the United States in the Philippine
islands for the purposes of public disorder or of rebellion or
insurrection against the authority of the United States in the
Philippine Islands, or any flag, emblem, or device of the Katipunan
Society, or which is commonly known as such, shall be punished
by a fine not less than 500 pesos nor more than 5,000 pesos, or
by imprisonment for not less than 3 months nor more than 5
years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of
the court.

Go Chico moved to acquit himself on the grounds that (1) criminal intent
must be proven beyond reasonable doubt upon the part of the accused
before being convicted and; (2) the prohibition of the law is directed