Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 194 views

    U.S. v. GO CHICO

    Uploaded by

    Maan
    Go Chico displayed medallions bearing images of Emilio Aguinaldo and the Philippine insurrection flag in his store window. He had purchased the medallions at a public sale and displayed them without knowledge of any law prohibiting it. The court ruled that criminal intent is not necessary for crimes defined by special laws, and that the insurrection flag prohibition referred to the type of flag rather than specific flags used, finding Go Chico guilty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    U.S. v. GO CHICO

    Uploaded by

    Maan
    194 views2 pages
    Go Chico displayed medallions bearing images of Emilio Aguinaldo and the Philippine insurrection flag in his store window. He had purchased the medallions at a public sale and displayed them without knowledge of any law prohibiting it. The court ruled that criminal intent is not necessary for crimes defined by special laws, and that the insurrection flag prohibition referred to the type of flag rather than specific flags used, finding Go Chico guilty.

    Original Description:

    Penal laws

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Go Chico displayed medallions bearing images of Emilio Aguinaldo and the Philippine insurrection flag in his store window. He had purchased the medallions at a public sale and displayed them without knowledge of any law prohibiting it. The court ruled that criminal intent is not necessary for crimes defined by special laws, and that the insurrection flag prohibition referred to the type of flag rather than specific flags used, finding Go Chico guilty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    194 views2 pages

    U.S. v. GO CHICO

    Uploaded by

    Maan
    Go Chico displayed medallions bearing images of Emilio Aguinaldo and the Philippine insurrection flag in his store window. He had purchased the medallions at a public sale and displayed them without knowledge of any law prohibiting it. The court ruled that criminal intent is not necessary for crimes defined by special laws, and that the insurrection flag prohibition referred to the type of flag rather than specific flags used, finding Go Chico guilty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    U.S. v.

    GO CHICO
    14 Phil 133
    Facts: On or about the 4th day of August, 1908, appellant Go
    Chico displayed in one of the windows and one of the show cases
    of his store in No. 89 Calle Rosario, Manila, a number of
    medallions, in the form of a small button, upon which were
    printed the miniature faces of Emilio Aguinaldo and the flag or
    banner or device used during the late insurrection in the Phil.
    Islands to designate and identify those in armed insurrection
    against the United States. On the day previous to the one set
    forth above, the appellant had purchased the said medallion sold
    at a public sale under the authority of the sheriff of the city of
    Manila. On the day in question, the appellant was arranging his
    stock of goods for the purpose of displaying them to the public,
    and in doing so, he placed the medallions in his showcase and on
    one of the windows of his store. The appellant was ignorant of any
    law against the display of such medallions and had consequently
    no corrupt intention. The facts stated above are admitted. The
    appellant has two propositions for his acquittal: first is that before
    a conviction can be had, a criminal intent upon the part of the
    accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Second is
    that the prohibition of law is directed against the use of identical
    banners, devices or emblems actually used during the Philippine
    insurrection by those in armed rebellion against the United States.

    Issue: Whether or not criminal intent is necessary in crimes


    punishable by special laws.

    Held: The court ruled that the act alone, irrespective of its motive,
    constitutes the crime. The words used during the late
    insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate or identify those
    in armed rebellion against the United States mean not only the
    identical flags actually used in the insurrection, but any flag which
    is of that type. The description refers not to a particular flag, but
    to a type of flag. The literal interpretation of a statute may lead to
    an absurdity, or evidently fail to give the real intent of the
    legislature.

    You might also like