G.R. No.

4963
US VS. CHICO

Facts:

-Defendant is charged for violation of No 1696.—An Act to prohibit the display of flags,
banners, emblems, or devices used in the Philippine Islands for the purpose of rebellion
or insurrection against the authority of the United States and the display of Katipunan
flags, banners, emblems, or devices, and for other purposes.

-On August 4, 1908 , in the city of Manila, Go Chico displayed in one of the windows
and one of the show cases of his store, No. 89 Calle Rosario, number of medallions.

-This medallions are in the form of small buttons, upon the faces of which are imprinted
in miniature the picture of Emilio Aguinaldo, and the flag or banner or device used
during the late insurrection in the Philippine Island to designate and identify the in
armed insurrection against the United states.
-Defendant contends that he should be acquitted upon two propositions:
First, that before conviction under the law cited, a criminal intent upon part of
the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Second, the prohibition of the law is directed against the use of identical banners,
devices or emblems used during the Philippine insurrection by those against the
United States.
- The court dismissed the propositions of the defendant. Thus, The Court of first
instance of Manila on 8 September 1908 charged him of violation of section 1 of Act.
1696 No 1696 of the Philippine Commission and adjudged him guilty and sentenced
him to pay a fine Php500.00 and to pay the costs of the action, and imprisonment during
the time and in the form and in the place prescribed by law until said fine should be
paid.
Issue/s:
Whether or not an intent is need for defendant to be held liable of the crime charge.
Ruling:

The court said, it is not necessary that the defendant should have acted with criminal
intent. In many crimes, made by statutory enactment, the intention of the person who
commits the crime is entirely immaterial. In many cases, the act complained of is itself
that which produces pernicious effect which the statute avoids.
At that time, the pernicious effect is produced with precisely the same force and result
whether the intention of the person performing the act is good or bad.
The display of the flags, emblems, itself without any intervention of any other factor, is
the evil.

In the case at bar, the evil to the society and governmental does not depend upon the
state of the mind of the one who displays the banner, but upon the effect which that
display has upon the public minds. In one case the public is affected by the intention of
the actor; in the other by the acts itself.