Title
Demata y Garzon vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 228583
Decision Date
Sep 15, 2021
A tabloid editor was acquitted of obscenity and child harm charges after publishing a minor's photo without consent, as the court found no intent to harm or obscenity under legal standards.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 228583)

Trial Court Findings

The RTC found the entire issue obscene, citing scantily clad women, blurred sex-tape stills, and erotic stories. It convicted Demata of Article 201(3) (imposing a ₱10 million fine) and RA 7610 Section 10(a) (six to seven years’ imprisonment plus ₱150,000 in damages), reasoning that as editor-in-chief he had active control over publication and that publication without AAA’s consent constituted child abuse.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed, applying various Philippine obscenity tests and borrowing from Miller v. California. It held that Bagong Toro lacked serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, appealed solely to prurient interest, and that Demata’s editorial discretion made him liable under both RPC Article 201 and RA 7610. Reconsideration was denied.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

  1. Whether Demata was properly convicted for “selling or circulating” obscene materials under RPC Article 201(3).
  2. Whether the photographs and erotica in Bagong Toro are obscene.
  3. Whether Demata violated RA 7610 Section 10(a) by causing conditions prejudicial to AAA’s development.

Analysis on Liability for Selling or Circulating Obscene Materials

The Court applied the variance doctrine (Rules 120 Sections 4 and 5), distinguishing between paragraph 2(a) (liability of editors for publishing obscene literature) and paragraph 3 (liability for selling or distributing obscene materials). There was no evidence Demata himself sold or distributed the tabloid; those functions belonged to a separate Circulation Department under Berna Paredes. Convicting him for acts he did not commit violated the requirement that each essential element be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Adoption of the Miller Three-Prong Test and Findings on Obscenity

Recognizing jurisprudential inconsistency, the Court formally adopted the Miller v. California test as refined by Pope v. Illinois and applied to average Filipino community standards:
a) Appeal to prurient interest by the average Filipino;
b) Depiction of sexual conduct in a patently offensive way;
c) Lack of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value taken as a whole.
The Court found no proof of applicable community standards, no “hard-core” patently offensive content (images were blurred or innuendo-driven), and that the tabloid’s mix of news, puzzles, health, and fiction provided some value. The material is constitutionally protected speech.

Scapegoating and Proximate Cause

The Court observed that charging Demata solely as “editor-in-chief” elevates a peripheral role to full responsibility (a “patsy” form of scapegoating). He lacked control over final content, distribution, and sale. Proximate cause principles require that the accused’s act be the natural, continuous cause of the offense; here, Demata’s editorial role was too remot

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms