People v. Kottinger
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Detective Juan Tolentino raided the Camera Supply Co. at 110 Escolta, Manila, and confiscated post-cards which were subsequently used as evidence against J. J. Kottinger, the manager. Procedural History: J. J. Kottinger was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for keeping for sale obscene and indecent pictures, in violation of section 12 of Act No. 277. The defendant's demurrer, arguing the facts did not constitute an offense, was overruled. The trial court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to a fine of P50 with subsidiary imprisonment and costs. The Petition: The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning five errors, which were categorized into two main issues: a technical objection regarding the demurrer and the substantive issue of whether the pictures were obscene or indecent.
Issue(s)
Whether the pictures portraying the inhabitants of the Philippines in native dress are obscene or indecent under Section 12 of Act No. 277. Whether the information filed against the defendant was fatally defective.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, dismissed the information, and acquitted the defendant-appellant. The Court held that pictures portraying the inhabitants of the country in native dress and as they appear and can be seen in the regions in which they live, are not obscene or indecent within the meaning of the Libel Law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the pictures are obscene or indecent: The Court found that the pictures in question merely depicted persons as they actually live, without attempted presentation of persons in unusual postures or dress. The Court reasoned that the aggregate judgment of the Philippine community and the moral sense of all the people in the Philippines would not be shocked by photographs of this type. Applying the test of obscenity, which is whether the tendency of the matter is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, the Court concluded that these pictures did not meet this standard. The Court also noted that similar illustrations were found in reputable magazines and publications of the Philippine Government, suggesting a national standard that these pictures did not violate. Therefore, the Court held that the post-card pictures could not be characterized as offensive to chastity, or foul, or filthy. On the issue of the information's defectiveness: While acknowledging that the information was lacking in precision and that the content of Section 12 of the Libel Law might not be as inclusive as it could be, the Court concluded that the information was not fatally defective and that Section 12 covered the alleged facts. The Court interpreted the phrase "or other matter" in Section 12 as a "catch-all" provision intended to cover kindred subjects, and that the rule of ejusdem generis should not be applied to defeat the legislative intent. The Court also considered Section 730 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, which more specifically prohibits the exhibition or sale of lewd, indecent, or obscene pictures.
Main Doctrine
Pictures portraying the inhabitants of the country in native dress and as they appear and can be seen in the regions in which they live, are not obscene or indecent within the meaning of the Libel Law.