The defendant in this case,  Juan Panganiban, was convicted by the Court of  First Instance of the Province of Rizal of having violated the provisions of Act No.  1696, and sentenced to  pay a fine  of P500 and  the  costs.   He appealed.

The trial court  found that the defendant did knowingly and wilfully expose, or cause to be exposed, to public view, by fastening on a  post oh the side of a public street in the town of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, and about 7 meters from his own house, from about the 7th of January, 1908, until about the 16th of March of the same year, the tablet or sign which forms the basis of this action.  This finding of fact is fully sustained by the proofs presented and the only question to be determined is whether or not the exposing to public view in this manner of the sign or tablet  constitutes a violation of law.

The tablet or sign was a little over a meter long  and almost a half a meter wide and quadrangular in shape.   On one end there was painted within a triangle the rising sun and three  stars.   Around  its border and also around the triangle  there was a red  and blue  stripe, with  a white space between them.  Nearly all of the part not taken up by the triangle and the red and blue border  was covered by the following inscription:

"UNION NACIONALISTA PARTY.

"In  commemoration of the mass  meeting held, Sunday the 27th of January, 1907, at Antipolo by the people of the town for the purpose  of  expressing their views  on  the question of the capacity and ability of the Filipino people to maintain a free and  independent  government."

The flag used by the insurgents during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands was quadrangular in shape. At the top end there was a triangle inclosing  a  rising  sun and three stars.  The whole background below the triangle was divided lengthwise into two  equal parts, one painted or colored  red and the  other blue.  The sun within  the triangle represented a rising republic and the three stars the three great subdivisions of the Philippine  Archipelago, viz, Luzon, Mindanao, and the Visayas.

As will be seen from  the above description,  the painting on the tablet or sign was not an exact reproduction of the insurgent flag, but it was an exact reproduction of the most prominent features; that is, the triangle with the representation of the sun and three stars.  In the preparation of this tablet an exact  reproduction of the insurgent flag was not  made.  This was done intentionally in order to avoid the  consequences.  But  the sign as painted,  including the inscription, would produce the same effect upon the minds of the people as it would had it been an exact reproduction of the flag used by the insurgents in the late rebellion.   In the place where it was exposed it would have been difficult to distinguish the difference between it and the flag itself. The exposing to public view of such a  sign or painting was for the express purpose  of exciting the people and stirring up hatred in their minds against the constituted authorities, and  the tablet  was so  designed as  to accomplish  these purposes.  To prohibit the display  of such signs was  one of the principal objects  in the enactment of Act No. 1696. The legislative body knew the conditions existing in  the country and wisely  prohibited the further display of such signs, banners, or devices.  The very  first section of that Act  (No. 1696)  provides as follows:

"Any person who  shall expose, or cause or permit to be exposed, to public view on his own premises, or who shall expose, or cause to  be, exposed, to  public view,  either  on his own premises, or elsewhere, any flag, banner, emblem,' or device used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate or  identify those in armed  rebellion against the  United  States  *   *  *   shall  be  punished *    *   *."

In the case of the United States vs. Go  Chico (14 Phil. Rep., 128) the defendant displayed in  one of the windows of his store a number of medallions, in the form  of small buttons, upon the faces of which were  imprinted in miniature a picture of Emilio Aguinaldo and the flag or banner or device used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands.  The court held  that these acts constituted a violation of section 1 of Act No,  1696,  supra.   It  is true that in this case an exact copy of the flag or banner or device was imprinted upon the faces of  these buttons, whereas in the case at bar an  exact copy of the flag or banner or device was not painted upon  the sign, but this was not of sufficient importance to bring it without the statute.  The intention to cause injury is manifest, and the painting is amply sufficient for  this purpose.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed; provided however, that in case  of insolvency  in  the payment of the fine the defendant be condemned to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment.   The defendant will pay the costs.

Arellano,  C. J.,  Torres, Johnson,  and Moreland, JJ.,concur.