People vs. Go Pin

Commercial exhibition of indecent or immoral films for gain and profit is punishable under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code even where the obscenity is only slight, and a penalty within the statutory range imposed in sound discretion will not be disturbed.

Go Pin was an alien and Chinese citizen exhibiting films at the Globe Arcade, a recreation center in the City of Manila. Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the exhibition of indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts, or shows. The distinction between presentation of nudity for the sake of art in art exhibits and galleries and its commercial exploitation for entrance fees frames the dispute.

Go Pin, a Chinese citizen and alien, exhibited at the Globe Arcade, a recreation center in the City of Manila, a large number of one-reel 16-millimeter films about 100 feet in length each, alleged to be indecent and immoral. Charged with violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, he first pleaded not guilty but was later permitted by the trial court to change his plea to guilty.

Not content to rest on the guilty plea alone, the trial court had the films projected and viewed them to evaluate decency and morality. After viewing, it noted only a slight degree of obscenity, indecency, and immorality in them. Before sentencing, the trial court sought the prosecuting attorney's recommendation, and that official recommended 2 years imprisonment and a P300 fine, citing appellant's status as an alien supposed to maintain a high degree of morality and his engagement in a trade said to degenerate the moral character of youth as regular customers.

Thereafter the trial court imposed 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional and a P300 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus costs. Appellant appealed without denying guilt, contending that the slight degree of obscenity warranted elimination of the prison sentence.

• Mitigation by Slight Obscenity: Petitioner argued that under the circumstances, particularly the slight degree of obscenity, indecency, and immorality noted by the trial court, the prison sentence should be eliminated from the penalty imposed, without denying guilt.
• Artistic Nudity: Petitioner maintained through counsel that paintings, pictures, and sculptures of women in the nude are not offensive because made and presented for the sake of art, invoking authorities to that effect.

• Prosecution Recommendation on Penalty: Respondent, through the prosecuting attorney, countered before sentence that appellant, as an alien supposed to maintain a high degree of morality in the Philippines and engaged in a nefarious trade degenerating the moral character of youth as regular customers, should be sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and P300 fine.
• Affirmance and Deportation: Respondent, through the Solicitor General, countered that the sentence should stand and urged recommendation to the proper authorities that deportation proceedings be instituted against appellant as an undesirable alien.

• Elimination of Imprisonment: Whether the prison sentence should be eliminated where the films exhibited were found to possess only a slight degree of obscenity, indecency, and immorality and where nude depictions may be tolerated for art's sake.
• Validity of Penalty Imposed: Whether the penalty of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional and P300 fine, within the range of Article 201, was properly imposed in sound discretion and should be affirmed without modification.

• Elimination of Imprisonment: No. Commercial exhibition for gain and profit is punishable despite only slight obscenity, the artistic-purpose tolerance being inapplicable where art was secondary to profit.
• Validity of Penalty Imposed: Yes. The penalty was within the range provided by Article 201 and was imposed in sound discretion, affording no reason for modification.

• Elimination of Imprisonment: Nude pictures, sculptures, and paintings shown in art exhibits and galleries for the cause of art, to be viewed by persons interested in art, commit no offense. Here, however, the pictures were used not for art's sake but for commercial purposes, with supposed artistic qualities commercialized so that art was of secondary or minor importance and gain and profit the main if not exclusive consideration. Patrons paying entrance fees were not artists seeking to satisfy artistic tastes but persons desirous of satisfying morbid curiosity, lust, and love for excitement, including immature youth unable to resist perverting effects. Guilt being undisputed and slight obscenity still falling within the prohibition, elimination of imprisonment was unwarranted.
• Validity of Penalty Imposed: The penalty imposed was within the range provided by Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. Despite the prosecution's recommendation of 2 years imprisonment and P300 fine, the trial court imposed only 6 months and 1 day plus P300 fine, evidently weighing its finding of only slight obscenity. The sentence was found to reflect sound discretion, with no justification for interference, and the absence of a deportation recommendation was likewise left undisturbed.

• Commercial exploitation of obscenity vs. art for art's sake — Presentation of nude pictures, sculptures, and paintings in art exhibits and galleries for the cause of art, to be viewed and appreciated by persons interested in art, commits no offense. Where such materials are exhibited commercially for entrance fees, with gain and profit as the main if not exclusive consideration and artistic value merely secondary, the exhibition is punishable as indecent or immoral, particularly as it caters to morbid curiosity and exposes youth to perverting effects.
• Discretion in imposing penalty within statutory range — A penalty within the range prescribed by law, imposed after consideration of the circumstances such as the degree of obscenity found upon the court's own viewing, is an exercise of sound discretion and will not be modified on appeal absent reason to disturb it.

• "If such pictures, sculptures and paintings are shown in art exhibits and art galleries for the cause of art, to be viewed and appreciated by people interested in art, there would be no offense committed." — States the limited tolerance for nude art and sets up the distinction from punishable commercial exhibition.
• "Gain and profit would appear to have been the main, if not the exclusive consideration in their exhibition" — Articulates the ratio for rejecting the art defense where artistic quality was commercialized for entrance fees.
• "We are satisfied that in imposing the penalty the trial court made use of its sound discretion, and we find no reason for modifying the said sentence." — States the controlling ground for affirming the penalty as within the statutory range and properly exercised discretion.

• Article 201, Revised Penal Code — Punishes exhibition of indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts, or shows; applied to appellant's commercial exhibition at the Globe Arcade of films found indecent and immoral, supporting the 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional and P300 fine as within the prescribed range.

Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.