THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GO PIN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Go Pin, an alien and a Chinese citizen, was charged with a violation of
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code for having exhibited in the City of Manila
at the Globe Arcade, a recreation center, a large number of one-real
16-millimeter films about 100 feet in length each, which are allegedly indecent
and/or immoral. At first, he pleaded not guilty of the information but later as
allowed by the court to change his plea to that of guilty which he did. Not
content with the plea of guilty the trial court had the films in question
projected and were viewed by it in order to evaluate the same from the
standpoint of decency and morality. Thereafter, and considering the plea of
guilty entered by the accused, and the fact thaf after viewing the films the
trial court noted only a slight degree of obscenity, indecency and immorality in
them, it sentenced the appellant to 6 months and 1 day of prision
correcional and to pay a fine of P300, with subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency, and to pay the costs. He is now appealing from the decision.

Go Pin does not deny his guilt but he claims that under the circumstances
surrounding the case, particularly the slight degree of obscenity, indecency and
immorality noted by the court in the films, the prison sentence should be
eliminated from the penalty imposed. His counsel brings to our, attention some
authorities to the effect that paintings and pictures of women in the nude,
including sculptures of that kind are not offensive because they are made and
presented for the sake of art. We agree with counsel for appellant in part. 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. However, the pictures
here in question were used not exactly for art’s sake but rather for commercial
purposes. In other words, the supposed artistic qualities of said pictures were
being commercialized so that the cause of art was of secondary or minor
importance. Gain and profit would appear to have been the main, if not the
exclusive consideration in their exhibition; and it would not be, surprising if
the persons who went to see those pictures and paid entrance fees for the
privilege of doing so, were not exactly artists and persons interested in art
and who generally go to art exhibitions and galleries to satisfy and improve
their artistic tastes, but rather people desirous of satisfying their morbid
curiosity and taste, and lust, and for love for excitement, including the youth
who because of their immaturity are not in a position to resist and shield
themselves from the ill and perverting effects of these pictures.

Before rendering sentence the trial court asked the prosecuting attorney for
this recommendation and said official recommended that “considering that the
accused Go Pin is an alien who is supposed to maintain a high degree of morality
while he is in the Philippines”, and “considering that he engaged in a very
nefarious trade, which degenerates the moral character of our youth, who are
usually the regular customers of his trade”, he recommended that appellant be
sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of P300. Notwithstanding this
recommendation, the trial court as already said, probably considering its
opinion that the pictures were not so obscence, indecent and immoral but only
slightly so, gave appellant only 6 months and 1 day of prision
correcional in addition to P300 fine.

The penalty imposed by the trial court is within the range provided by
Article 201 of the Revised Code. 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. The Solicitor General in his brief even urges that
we recommend to the proper authorities that deportation proceedings be
instituted against appellant as an undesirable alien. The trial court could have
done this but did not do so, believing perhaps that it was warranted. We repeat
that we do not feel justified in interfering with the discretion of the trial
court in the imposition of the sentence in this case.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with
costs.

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

Judgment affirmed.