PEOPLE v.

APARICI
Facts:
On February 3, 1953 Detectives Nibungco and Jose accompanied by photographers Fajardo and
Domingo of the Manila Chronicle, went to Azcarraga Theatre, in order to observe what was being exhibited
by the accused Virginia Aparici there. She was in a dimly lit stage “dancing with her hips swaying” with
nothing on except nylon patches over her breasts and a “too abbreviated pair of nylon panties to interrupt
her stark nakedness” and around her waist was a “furry white girdle with a middle piece punctuating
attention on the thing she was supposed to hide”. There were more than 100 customers and all of them
were men. Most of them have been howling and shouting in tagalog: “sigue muna, sigue nakakalibog”.
Detectives Nibungco and Jose stopped the show and asked the accused to put on her dress and to
surrender to them her brassiere and panties.
In her defense, she claimed that her performance (hula hula dance) was her portrayal of the life of
a widow whose guerrilla husband was killed by the Japanese; depicting the different emotions of the widow
such as sadness, anger and happiness. She was prosecuted for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal
Code which penalizes:
“3. Those who in theatres, fairs, cinematographs or any other place open to public view, shall
exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts and shows.”
Issue: WON accused-appelant’s dancing was indecent or immoral in violation of article 201 of the RPC?
Ruling: The court ruled that the accused had exhibited indecent and immoral acts. The gauge whether her
dancing was immoral or indecent was the reaction of the public. Evidently, the spectators had given their
unequivocal verdict when they were howling and shouting: “Sigue muna, sigue, nakakalibog”. Counsel for
defense also advances the argument that the reaction of the low class and uncultured audience is an
unreliable gauge in determining the objective indecency and decency of a performance. The court clarified
that the test whether a particular act is obscene is its tendency “to deprave or corrupt those whose minds
are open to such influences”, be they cultured or not.

People v. Kottinger

- Petitioner JJ Kotinger is the manager of Camera Supply Co. in Escolta, Manila

 in 1922, the establishment was raided and “obscene and indecent pictures” were found
 the pictures depicted inhabitants of the Philippines from different regions in their native
dresses

- Petitioner was charged in violation of Sec. 12, Act No. 277 (for keeping/selling obscene pictures)

ISSUE: W/N the said pictures can be considered “obscene and idecent”

Held: No
- The pictures merely provide a depiction of non-Christian inhabitants in the Philippines
- Publication can be considered obscene if:
 it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency
- SC relied on US jurisprudence to define what is obscene within the limits of the law (since PH law
failed to define it)
People v. Padan, 101 Phil 749 (1957)
FACTS:

- Marian Padan, Jose Fajardo, Cosme Espinosa, and Ernesto Reyes were charged for violation of
Art. 201 of the RPC for conspiring and confederating together an exhibit of sexual intercourse in
the presence of spectators in Tondo on Sept. 13, 1953. The following were the roles of the
accussed:
o Padan and Espinosa: performed sexual intercourse
o Garcia: person in charge of exhibit
o Reyes: ticket collector
- Initially, all of them pleaded not guilty. However, Padan reversed her pleading. CFI, then,
convicted them all and sentenced them to imprisonment and payment of fines. They appealed
the decision due to the penalty and conviction.
- Padan: urges the Court to reduce her penalty by eliminating the prison sentence
- Garcia: insists he was not the manager or the person in charge of the show; he merely selected
the performers because of his siga-siga character and left only to come back during the
commotion arose (police raid)
- Cosme and Reyes failed to submit briefs for the appeal

ISSUE: W/N the exhibition is obscene and punishable under Art. 201 of RPC

RULING: YES. The exhibit performed, preceded by acts of lasciviousness, can have no redeeming feature.
In it, there is no room for art. One can see nothing in it but clear and unmitigated obscenity, indecency,
and an offense to public morals, inspiring and causing as it does, nothing but lust and lewdness, and
exerting a corrupting influence specially on the youth of the land.