The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed two criminal cases against Demata for
publishing a photo of 17-year-old AAA in Bagong Toro tabloid without her consent. The June
21, 2012 issue featured AAA’s picture under the “Facebook Sexy and Beauties” section,
alongside images of women in revealing outfits. This led to charges of violating Article 201 of
the Revised Penal Code for publishing obscene materials and Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610 for
causing psychological harm to a minor. AAA, who came from a conservative Muslim family,
suffered from bullying, academic struggles, and emotional distress, later being diagnosed with
PTSD.
During his defense, Demata argued that the publication was not obscene, as AAA was fully
clothed and not posed provocatively. He claimed that verifying the sources of published photos
was the responsibility of Bagong Toro's layout artists, and he simply followed his superiors'
directives to keep his job. However, he failed to provide proof of verification records, stating
they had been deleted after his termination from the newspaper.
The RTC found Demata guilty, ruling that while AAA’s photo itself was not obscene, the
Bagong Toro tabloid, taken as a whole, was obscene due to its sexually provocative content.
Citing precedent cases, the court emphasized the tabloid’s explicit images and erotic stories.
Additionally, it held that publishing AAA’s photo in a pornographic publication without her
consent constituted child abuse, causing psychological harm. The RTC also rejected Demata’s
defense, stating that as editor-in-chief, he failed to properly verify the photo’s ownership and
should have prevented its improper use.
The Court of Appeals (CA) denied Demata’s appeal, affirming the RTC’s ruling that Bagong
Toro failed obscenity tests and lacked artistic or literary value, unlike Playboy or FHM. It
concluded that the tabloid catered only to prurient interests and upheld Demata’s conviction for
violating Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610, finding no reversible error in the RTC’s decision.
Issue: Whether the evidence sufficiently established that the overall content of the Bagong Toro
issue is obscene under the applicable standards, including the adaptation of the Miller test.
Ruling: No. The Evidence did not sufficiently established that the overall content of the Bagong
Toro issue is obscene under the applicable standards, including the adaptation of the Miller test.
In the case of Miller vs California it gives a three-pronged test to determine the obscenity; First
whether the average Filipino, applying contemporary community standards, would find the
material as appealing to prurient interests; second, whether, applying contemporary community
standards, the material describes or depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and
third, whether the average Filipino would find the material, taken as a whole, as seriously lacking
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
In this case, the RTC failed to considered the “average Filipino as a conservative Muslim” The
evidence simply does not sufficiently characterize the average Filipino as such. Furthermore, to
hold otherwise would be to indirectly violate the non-establishment of religion clause under the
Constitution. To be clear, this does not mean that our legal system is hostile to religion or to
Muslim views on obscenity. Second, The case examines whether the Bagong Toro newspaper
meets the obscenity standard under the Miller test, particularly the "patently offensive"
requirement. The RTC acknowledged that the complainant’s photo was not obscene by itself but
ruled the entire tabloid as obscene due to its content featuring nude and semi-naked women in
provocative poses. However, the court found no clear depiction of "hardcore" sexual conduct as
required by law. The tabloid’s use of innuendos and blurred images further cast doubt on its
offensiveness. Additionally, it was not proven that the publication, taken as a whole, lacked
literary, artistic, or political value, as it contained news, comics, and other sections beyond the
contested content. Thus, the lower courts' narrow focus on specific pages was deemed inadequate
in determining obscenity. Third, The Court emphasized that the lower courts failed to properly
assess the Bagong Toro newspaper as a whole, focusing only on select pages featuring women
and neglecting its other sections, such as news, commentary, and leisure. Additionally, the courts
did not consider the perspective of the average Filipino reader, instead applying a narrow and
potentially elitist standard. While the RTC has the authority to determine obscenity, its discretion
must align with the Miller test. Since the ruling lacked sufficient factual and legal basis, the
decision declaring Bagong Toro obscene was reversed, reaffirming its protection under free
speech.
Since it failed to the Miller’s test, therefore the Bagong toro is constitutionally protected speech
therefore, we reversed the ruling of the CA
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 28, 2016 and the Resolution dated
November 29, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37864 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Even
Demata y Garzon is hereby ACQUITTED of violating Article 201(3) of the Revised Penal Code and Section 10(a)
of Republic Act No. 7610.
