PEOPLE v.

APARICI

Facts:

On February 3, 1953 Detectives Nibungco and Jose accompanied by photographers Fajardo

and Domingo of the Manila Chronicle, went to Azcarraga Theatre, in order to observe what was
being exhibited by the accused Virginia Aparici there. She was in a dimly lit stage “dancing with her
hips swaying” with nothing on except nylon patches over her breasts and a “too abbreviated pair of
nylon panties to interrupt her stark nakedness” and around her waist was a “furry white girdle with a
middle piece punctuating attention on the thing she was supposed to hide”. There were more than
100 customers and all of them were men. Most of them have been howling and shouting in tagalog:
“sigue muna, sigue nakakalibog”. Detectives Nibungco and Jose stopped the show and asked the
accused to put on her dress and to surrender to them her brassiere and panties.

In her defence, she claimed that her performance (hula hula dance) was her portrayal of the
life of a widow whose guerrilla husband was killed by the Japanese; depicting the different emotions
of the widow such as sadness, anger and happiness. She was prosecuted for violation of Article 201
of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes:

“3. Those who in theatres, fairs, cinematographs or any other place open to public view,
shall exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts and shows.”

Issue: WON accused-appelant’s dancing was indecent or immoral in violation of article 201 of the
RPC?

Ruling: The court ruled that the accused had exhibited indecent and immoral acts. The gauge
whether her dancing was immoral or indecent was the reaction of the public. Evidently, the
spectators had given their unequivocal verdict when they were howling and shouting: “Sigue muna,
sigue, nakakalibog”. Counsel for defense also advances the argument that the reaction of the low
class and uncultured audience is an unreliable gauge in determining the objective indecency and
decency of a performance. The court clarified that the test whether a particular act is obscene is its
tendency “to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such influences”, be they cultured
or not.