REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS MANILA

CARLOS CELDRAN Y PAMINTUAN,
Petitioner,

- versus- CA-G.R. en No. 36170

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
December 12, 2014

Greetings:
. i

Please take notice that on December 12, 201.4, a DECISION, copy j hereto
attached, was rendered in the above-entitled case by the- TWELFTH DIVISION', of the
Court of Appeals, Manila, the original of which is now on file with this Court.

You are hereby required to inform this Court within FIVE (5) days from notice
hereof of the date when you received this notice and the attached copy of the decision.

Respectfully yours,

TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN
Clerk of Court
By':"'/

----t~~StT;~. ~S-T~DIE}
Division Clerk oj Court
Copy furnished:

Dellosa Mendoza Bag-Ao & Manuel- Roque & Butuyan Law Offices - reg. wire
reg.w/rc Collaboraitng Counsel for Petitioner
Counsel for Petitioner 1904 Antel Corporate Centre,
3'd Floor, Prince David Condominium 121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village
Katipunan A venue, Loyola Heights 1227 Makati City
1108 Quezon City
Office of the Solicitor General- reg wire
Lagman Lagman & Mones Law Firm- Counsel for Repsondeni
reg.w/.rc 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Collaborating Counsel for Petitioner 1229 Makati City
2/F Tempus Place IICondominium
Makatarungan and Matalino Sts., Hon. Presiding Judge - reg wire
Dilirnan, 1104 Quezon City Regional Trial Court
Branch 32
1000 Manila

JRD-CA ISDD-CA ARCHIVES-CA

Imdby
[Type here]
 Republic' of the Philippines
Court of Appeals
MANILA
TWELFTH (12th) DIVISION
CARLOS CELDRAN y C.A-G.R. CR NO. 36170
PAMINTUAN,
Peti tioner , Members:

- versus- DIMAAMPAO I.E.,

Chairperson,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, YBANEZ, E.A., &
Respondent. MANAHAN C.S., Jf.

Promulgated:
t":EC 1 2 2014
)( - - - -- --- - -- -- - -- -- - - -

DEC I S ION -rt

---------- --- - - ----- -- -- -- - - -- ---
L
)(

c: '('-J ~ W
SALANDANAN-MANAHAN, J.:

Before us is Petition for Review' pursuant to Rule 42 of the

Revised Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the following
issuances of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 32:

(1) Decision/ dated 12 August 2013, and

(2) Order' dated 11 November 2013,

which affirmed the Decision" promulgated on 28 January 2013 of the

Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 4.

The assailed Decision and Order of the RTC affirmed the

conviction of petitioner Carlos P. Celdran (petitioner, for brevity), for
the crime of Offending the Religious Feelings under Article 133 of the

1 Rollo. pp.35-89.
2
Rollo.pp.11-32. 101-122.
3
Rollo. p.33, 123.
4
Rollo. pp.92-99.

[Type here]
 ICA. GR CR No. 36170 2 of 23
DECISION

Revised Penal Code (RPC) rendered by the MeTC, Branch 4 on 28

January 2013, the dispositive portion of which reads, to wit:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered affirming

the Decision dated December 14, 2012 rendered by the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 4, Manila finding accused-
appellant CARLOS P. CELDRAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Offending Religious Feelings under Article 133 of
the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to an indeterminate
prision term of two (2) months and twenty one (21) days of arresto
mayor, as minimum to one (1) year, one (1) month and eleven (11)
days of prision correccional, as maximum with cost de officio.

SO ORDERED."s

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On 1 October 2010, an Information" was filed with the MeTC,

Branch 4, Manila, charging petitioner with the crime of Offending the
Religious Feelings under Article 133 of the RPC committed as
follows:

"That on or about September 30, 2010, in the City of

Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously disrespect, disregard and offended
the feelings of various religious leaders in the persons of Cardinal
Gaudencio Rosales, Papal Nuncio, Ambassador de Villa and other
leaders of different Christian denominations, by then and there
displaying a placard/board bearing the word "DAMASO" while
ecumenical service was going on inside the Manila Cathedral
Church, Intramuros, which notoriously offended the feelings of
the religious leaders and the faithful, represented by Msgr. Nestor
Cerbo Y Cerda, Rector of the Manila Cathedral Church,
Intramuros, this Citv."
J

Petitioner was arraigned, and with the assistance of counsel,

pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits began with the prosecution
presenting four (4) witnesses.

5
Rollo. p.32.

[Type here]
 6
Rollo. p.124.

[Type here]
 1c.A. CR CR No. 36170 3 of 23
DECISION

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

Culled from the Decision of the RTC, the prosecution's

evidence was anchored on the testimonies of Teresita Azurin,
Marcelina Cacal and Fr. Oscar Alunday. The prosecution proferred
the following version of how the incident subject matter of this case
transpired:

"In celebration of the second anniversary of the May They Be One

Campaign (MTBC) and the launching of Hand Written Bible, which
coincided with the feast of Saint Jerome, a throng of people composed
mainly of catholic church dignitaries intermixed with those of different
religions and persuaiions (sic) such as members of the military, police,
media, non-catholics, students, representatives of various religious
organizations, etc. gathered around, almost filling the Manila Cathedral,
Iniramuros, Manila in the afternoon of September 30, 2010.

This event comprised of three (3) inseparable parts. The first part
was the ecumenical liturgical religious worship wherein the heads of the
different protestant mainland churches and the catholic church were
present celebrating the words of God. It was followed by the Eucharistic
celebration - the holy mass, the integral part of the celebration. The
last part was the hand written unity bible. (TSN, May 7, 2012, pages 15-
16)

As part of the ecumenical liturgical religious worship, Brother

Edgar J. Tria Tirona, national president of the Sangguniang Laiko n.g
Pilipinas, was reading a passage [rom the Bible at around 3:00 o'clock in
the afternoon. And it was thereabouts that the incident subject matter of
this case commenced.

Teresita Azurin, a devout catholic, regular church goer, former

theology teacherlfacilitator in retreats bibliodrama all over Asia for more
than 10 years, volunteer in uarious biblical activities in the country, and
an attendee in this event as a volunteer in the bible enthronement part,
recalled that she was at the left side of the cathedral when she saw
accused-appellant holding a placard coming from the side (left) where she
was. Wearing an odd and anachronous outfit of black suit with a hat,
accused-appellant quietly sauntered toward the center of the aisle in front
of the altar and suddenly brough.t out a placard, approximately 1.4 of an
illustration board, emblazoned with the word "DAMASO", big enough to
be read Llp to the end of the seats at the Cathedral. He was showing it
(placard) to the Papal Nuncio, Cardinal, and the bishops sitied (sic) in
front of the cathedral and to the assembly. It occurred to her, at the outset,
that it was part of the Brother Tirona's presentation but understanding
dawned on her moments later that it was not as she initally thought it

[Type here]
 was. Proceeding in front to find out what was happening, she noticed that
somebody was taking accused-appellant. Commotion ensued when

[Type here]
 1c.A. GR CR No. 36170 4 of 23
DECISION

accused-appellant started shouting while inside the church. Initially

nervous witnessing the raucous scene, she soon became offended and
indignant that it disrupted and showed disrespect to an otherwise solemn
celebration. She conjured that the "DAMASO" (written in the placard
held by accused-appellant) was Padre Damaso, a character in Jose Rizal's
novel depicted as not a very good example of a clergy who fathered a child.
Outside the context of what happened (subject of this case), she considered
"damaso" as not a bad word. As an ordinary catholic, she/ albeit believing
that attention must called on the wrong doings of priests, subscribes to the
view that it should be done sincerely, in private and definitely not in a
place for public worship and during a religious activity. As it happened,
she found it (accused-appellant's act) offensive as it presumed that every
clergy present during the occasion had done something amiss.

Corroborating the testimony of Teresita /Azurin, Marcelina

Cacal, an employee of Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines
(CBep) for tuielue (12) years and also an attendee at the subject event,
recounted that she was at the back of the cathedral when the subject
incident happened. Calling one of the guards stationed at the back of the
cathedral as the scene was unfolding, she later saw accused-appellant
being grabbed and escorted to the side of the church, tohere he bawled
words which she could not exactly identify. To her understanding
"Damaso" was a person in our history about a priest 'who committed
something against the church. Mulling over what happen edt she feels
trauma toheneuer she hears the word "Damaso".

Tasked with taking pictures during the subject event, Angelita

Cacal, a staff of the Episcopal Commission for Biblical Apostolate
(ECBA)/ confirmed the testimonies of the two (2) previous witnesses of
the prosecution and identified the pictures taken by him during the event
which were presented to the court. Completely unaware that the subject
incident would happen, he was taken aback as it reeled off as there were
plenty of guests and the Papal Nuncio was in attendance at the time.
Taking accused by himself came to his mind but as he was unauthorized,
he backtracked. As a catholic/ he was shocked and got furious with what
h.appened. Seeing accused-appellant holding the placard with the word
"Damaso" written on it, he considered it to be disrespectful of him
(accused-appellant) to have done so.

As the executive secretaru of the Episcopal Commission for Biblical

Apostolate of the CBCP for the past eleven (11) years, it was the official
role of Father Oscar Alundau to plan and organize the whole event,
during which the incident subject matter of this case happened. As an
organizer of the occasion, his main role was to see to it that everything
flows smoothly. At that time, he was on the left side facing the altar,
behind the first post where the media people were located. Strategically
positioned/ he saw everything that happened. There, a meter and a half
away from him/ he immediately noticed accused-applellant standing right
beside the media people. Accused-appellant was then going back and forth

[Type here]
 leA. GR CR No. 36170
DECISION
5 of 23

which. he did twice or thrice. The last time he did 501 he brught with him a
placard, holding it behind him and then he put it down. l!v7'lilethe
liturgical, religious worship was going on accused-appellant looked at the
right aisle of the cathedral and winked at somebody positioned there.
Accused-appellant soon picked up the placard and ambled to the center of
the aisle and once there made a bow to the altar to genuflect, an act which
is considered a veneration, as a respect to any religious worship.
instantly, he raised the placard, with the word "DAMAS 0"
conspicuously written on it while he traipsed to the center of the aisle, in
front of the altar. And soon, hefaced Cardinal Rosales, the bishops and the
Papal Nuncio! who was the representative of the Holy Father in the
Philippines. His initial fascination, engendered by his notion that this
scene was part of Mr. Tirana's different style of presentation, was soon
replaced with shock, agitation and a feeling of being insulted as awareness
loomed upon him that it was not as he initially deciphered it was. Looking
at the bishops, he saw them pointing at him being the organizer of the
event, instructing him to do something about the incident, as he and the
other organizers turned pallid. Accused-appellant then started shouting
"Bishops, stop involving yourself (sic) in politics while raising and
/I

showing his placard to the cardinal. While shock filled him, he cannot also
help to pity the cardinal who did nothing but look down, obviously
sharing the same feeling of consternation and seemed cannot imagine
what was going on. Mr. Cornejo, the Vice-President of GMA7, stood up,
followed by him, took and convinced accused-appellant to stay away from
the center aisle. Not letting UPI accused-appellant still went back and
continued shouting at the top of his voice toward the Cardinal, Papal
Nuncio and bishops and raised and showed the placard at them. While he
and Mr. Cornejo had succeeded in bringing accused-appellant at the left
side near the choir, he nonetheless continued to struggle with. him
(accused-appellant) by putting down the placard which he was raising for
everybody to see, simultaneously shouting "Ano gusto nyo, magsisigmo
pa?" (What do you want, do I still need to shout?). Pleading him
(accused-appellants) not tO he also beseeched him to just air whatever he
I

wished to say outside the confines of the church. With the help of the
military men, thelj managed to get him out of the cathedral.

When he saw the word "DAMASO" in the placard, he, at the

inception, thought it referred to the secretary of Saint Jerome, prompting
him to think that the scene was part of the reflection. In hindsight, in the
light of the demonstration held by a group advocating Pro RH Bill that
ensued the following day at the CBCP and taking into account the attire
of accused-appellant which looked like the one worn by Jose Rizal, it
occurred to him that the word "Damaso" is connected with Philippine
History, the abuses committed by the clergy during the time of Rizal. As a
Christian catholic, inside the holy place, minor basilica of the Immaculate
Concepcion, the main church of the Bishops and the Holy father in the
Philippines, which is more than four hundred (400) years old where all the
Bishops and cardinal 'were consecrated there, he felt offended and insulted.
An intrusion of the holy religious liturgical worship, where catholics and

[Type here]
 1c.A. GR CR No. 36170 6 of 23
DECISION

non catholics were united by the word of God and manifesting in one
word of God, he considered accused-appellant's actions very insulting. 1/7

After the prosecution rested its case, the petitioner filed a

Demurrer to Evidence" on 3 May 2012, with prior leave of court",
arguing that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements of the
crime charged in the Information. He also raised the constitutionality
of Article 133 of the RPC. An Opposition to the Demurrer to
Evidence" was filed by the private prosecutor on 18 May 2012.

In its Order" dated 11 June 2012, the MeTC denied the

petitioner's Demurrer to Evidence for lack of merit.

Consequently, the petitioner presented for his defense two

witnesses, namely: Ms. Ria Regina S. Limjap and Atty. Christian
Monsod.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The pertinent portion of the RTC Decision reads:

"Gist of Ms. Ria Regina S. Limjap's (hereinafter called

"Ms. Limjap") testimony:

Having known accused-appellant for about ten (10) years and

worked untn him in a number of projects, she has come to know him
bolh as a friend and an artist, sharing with him a love for history. Her
first meeting with him dates back in 2003 when they worked together
in a theater project, she was part of the production and he was an actor.
As their meeting blossomed into friendship, so was their work
association extended. He did oratorical walking tours in the old historical
district of Manila of 'which she attended many, transcribed and
commented on some of them. Among the many projects they have done
together, which were more on art and culture, was an event that
commemorated the Battle of Manila. Her relationship 'with him (as a
closefriend and work associate) spanning a good number of years, she
has come to know him as having a background on performance art and
studied at a very good art school in the United States.
7
Rollo. pp.12-15.
8
Rollo. pp.126-152.
9
Rollo, p.125. The Order of the MeTe dated 11 Apr1l2012.
10
Rollo, pp.155-161.
11
Rollo, pp.162-164.

[Type here]
 ICA. GR CR No. 36170
DECISION
7 of 23

Distinctly, she remembered that in the afternoon of September 3D,

2010, she was at Unit 24 North Sequia Apartment, an artist's place
where they usually hangout. With a deadline to beat, she was on her
computer, writing while accused was getting dressed up and ready for
something. He then entreated her to accompany and drive him to the
Manila Cathedral where, she was made aware, there will be an Anti RH
demonstration to be attended by people oppposed to the Reproductive
Health (RH) bill.

Frequently walking the streets of Manila where he sees many

children and young pregnant mothers who obviously cannot take care of
their children accused-appellant is a keen advocate of the bill.

Initially unbidding to heed his request because it was then

raining, she ultimately yielded, willing to take a rest from writing. She
and accused-appellant, wearing his usual attire of dark pants, white shirt
and black suit and hat, then proceeded to the Manila Cathedral.

After parking their vehicle, they entered the church using the right
side entrance. It was awashed with all sorts of people. There were
members of the police, VIP's, nuns, choir members, etc. In view perhaps
of her failure to glance at the front seats, the attendance of church
dignitaries escaped her notice.

A little bit conscious because Carlos was wearing black, she, once
inside the church, tried to figure out whether a mass was being held at
that time but sooner she realized that the answer to her mental query was
in the negative.

While they (she and accused-appellant) were standing near the

pillar, looking around, accused-appellant then told her he wanted to raise
the piece of cardboard with the word "Damaso" written on it. Though
having no lcnowledge why he has it, she was aware what the word meant.
Damaso is a character in the novel Noli Me Tangere written by Jose
Rizal.

'Are you sure?" was her response to him, who then gave her a
camera for her to take pictures intended to be posted in facebook. As she
considered it a bad angle (in taking pictures) from where she was, she
scurried out of the church to the back door and made a re-entry through
the main entrance. There and then, she saw accused, quiet and calm,
already at the middle aisle near and facing the altar and holding the
placard. She admired him for his valor in doing so.

As accused-appellant was standing there a few minutes, no big

reaction was elicited from the people, there was no mumble, people were
just sitted (sic). She even remembered him changing his position from one
side to the other as he held the placard, nay making a quarter turn,

[Type here]
 Ic.A. GR CR No. 36170 8 of 23
DECISION

prompting her to think, at that juncture, that he 'Wasexhibiting the funny

side of him. To her, not a trace of scandal can be seen from his movements.

As a couple of policemen came and escorted him out of the

cathedral, discernment came to her that he was in trouble, so she exited
the church and beheld a somewhat chaotic scene where accused was being
surrounded by several members of the police and other men in plain
clothes. A manacle was placed in his hands. Though in answer to her
query, the police officer told her that accused-appellant 'Would not be
apprehended, he was nevertheless brought to the nearest police precint.

Summary of Atty. Christian Monsod's (hereinafter called

"Atty. Monsod" for brevity) testimony:

A vice-chairman of the Bishop Businessman Conference for

human development, he was invited by the Bible Society to attend the
subject event.

Gracing the occasion, he siited (sic) himself at the third row

fronting the first and second pews where the bishops were positioned.

He confirmed that accused-appellant, dressed in an outfit that

resembles the one worn by Jose Rizal, silently walked to the middle of the
aisle and reaching the front of the altar, he raised the placard with the
'word "Damaso" written on it. He and the bishops were looking at him.
He was sure that the bishops got the import of what he (accused-
appellant) had done.

A few minutes thereafter, accused-appellant, in silence, went with

police officer who took him to the side of the cathedral. Thereat, accused-
appellant said in a loud voice Don't meddle with politics. "
II

This incident unfolded not during the celebration of the holy mass,
and nothing happened that disturbed the proceedings.

A catholic himself he did not consider accused-appellant's actions

offensive. The word "Damaso" inscribed on the placard brought out by
accused-appellant during the subject incident, has something to do with
Jose Rizal since Padre Damaso was the central figure in his writings. "12

On 28 January 2013, the MeTC rendered its Decision", finding

accused CARLOS CELDRAN Y PAMINTUAN Guilty" beyond II

reasonable doubt for the crime of Offending the Religious Feelings

12
Rolio,pp.16-18.
13
Supra, note 4.

[Type here]
 eA. GR CR No. 36170 9 of 23
lDECISION
under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him
accordingly.

Petitioner then filed on 11 February 2013 a Notice of Appeal".

The RTC gave due course to the appeal and on 12 August 2013, it
rendered a Decision", the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered affirming

the Decision dated December 14, 2012 rendered by the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 4, Manila finding accused-
appellant CARLOS P. CELDRAN guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Offending Religious Feelings under Article
133 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to an
indeterminate prision term of two (2) months and twenty one (21)
days of arresto mayor, as minimum to one (1) yeart one (1) month
and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as maximum with
cost de officio.

SO ORDERED."16

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration" (Re: Decision

dated 12 August 2013) on 20 September 2013, but the same was
denied by the RTC in its Order" dated 11 November 2013, which
states:

"Finding no cogent reason to depart from the previous

ruling of the court in its decision dated August 12, 2013, the
Motion for Reconsideration dated August 12, 2013 filed by
accused-appellant is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED."l'!

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Review'? on 23

December 201321. Thereafter, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSC)
filed its Comment" on 18 March 2014.
.14
Ro110. pp.168-169.
15 .Supra. note. 2 .
16
RoUo, p.32.
17
Rollo, pp.228-360.
18
Supra, note 3.
19 Ro11
0, p.123.
20 Supra, not.e 'I .
21
Rollo. p.34. The Petition for Review was filed wtthm the extended period granted per Resolution of the
Court of Appeals. Special Eighth Division dated 8 .January 2014.

[Type here]
 IC.A. GR CR No. 36170 10 of 23
DECISION

On 28 May 2014, a Resolution" of the Court of Appeals,

Thirteenth Division directed the parties to file their respective
memoranda. In a Resolution" dated 13 August 2013, this Court
deemed the petition submitted for decision.

ISSUES

In its Petition, the following assignment of errors are

interposed by the petitioner:

THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF THE
PETITIONER ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ON
RECORD/5

THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

ERRED IN NOT DECLARING fu"\.TICLE 133 OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.26

RULING

First Assigned Error

The petitioner's argument that the RTC erred when it affirmed

the conviction on the basis of the evidence on record is bereft of
merit.

The elements of Offending the Religious Feelings as defined

under Article 133 of the RPC are:

22 .
Rollo. pp.543-566. Pursuant to the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Former Special Eighth Drviston
dated 15 January 2014. directing the respondents t.o me a Comment.
23
Rollo.p.569.
24
Rollo,p.674.
25
Rollo,p.40.
26
Rollo,p.41.

[Type here]
 1c.A. GR CR No. 36170 11 of 23 I
DEClSION

(1) that the acts complained of were performed in a

place devoted to religious worship, or during the
celebration of any religious ceremony; and

(2) that the acts must be notoriously offensive to the

feelings of the faithful."

We find that the following elements are present to uphold the

petitioner's conviction.

Element No.1 is present.

The subject incident had been committed by the petitioner

during the celebration of a religious ceremony, the second
anniversary of the May They Be One Bible Campaign (MTBC) and
the launching of Hand Written Bible, which coincided with the feast
of Saint Jerome where many people composed of mainly Catholic
Church dignitaries intermixed with different religions were in
attendance. The event consisted of three (3) parts, namely: the
ecumenical liturgical religious worship, the Eucharistic celebration
and the hand written unity bible. The incident happened when
Brother Edgar J. Tria Tirona, National President of the Sangguniang
Laiko ng Pilipinas, was reading a passage from the Bible at around
3:00 p.m. on 3 September 2010.

As correctly observed by the RTC in its decision, the first

element is present since it has been established that the incident
transpired inside the Manila Cathedral, which is palpably a place
devoted to religious worship.

Element No.2 is present.

It is noteworthy to ask what does Art 133 Offending

the
Religious Feelings mean when it crirninalizes "acts notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful"?

27
Luis B. Reyes. The Revised Penal Code: Book IT, 76 (2006).

[Type here]
 1c.A. GR CR No. 36170 12 of 23
DECISION

At the outset, to help elucidate this matter, we must define each

term as applied in Article 133.

Acts would be interpreted to mean any movement for the

purpose of being understood and seen. It may be in the form of
uttered words, overt behavior, deeds, or anything which is
knowingly performed by a person, symbolic or otherwise. Petitioner
even defined an 'action' when it stated that, "an action, in the strict
sense, consists of a voluntary corporal movement, or a body movement,
guided to obtain a determined end. "28

In the case under consideration, it has been established that the

acts cormnitted by the petitioner are as follows: (1) petitioner was
dressed in black suit and hat; (2) he walked through the middle aisle
in front of the altar of the Manila Cathedral; (3) he displayed a
placard with the word 'DAMASO' and showed it to the assembly of
persons thereat, while an ecumenical service was ongoing; and (4)
after being escorted out, petitioner blurted out the words of the same
tenor - "Don't meddle in politics". Significantly, the collective
testimonies of witnesses for the prosecution positively pointed to the
petitioner as the one who committed the foregoing acts."

Notoriously offensive may be interpreted to mean something

made known which causes someone to feel resentful, upset or
annoyed. It is viewed from the standard of any religion as being
offensive. The act is offensive to a religious whether he is a member
of the particular religion concerned or not; whether he is present or
absent thereat."

It bears articulating that the offense is judged from the point of

view of the complainant, and not that of the offender. As held by the
Court in one case, "whether or not the act complained of is offensive to the
religious feelings of the Catholics, is a question of fact which must be judged
only according to the feelings of the Catholics and not those of other faithful
ones, for it is possible that certain acts may offend the feelings of those who
28 RoUo. p.657. citing Cuello Calon, Derecno Penal, Vol. 1 312 (1952). The text says: "La accion (en sen/ido
estrlto) consiste en Wl movimiento corporal voluTllW'io. 0 en una d.e movimientos corporales. dirigldos a la
obtencion de uri fin. determinado."
29
Rollo, p.98.
30 Leonor D, Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 399 (2008).

[Type here]
 c.A. GR CR No. 36170 13 of 23 I
~
DECISION
----------------------------------------------,
profess a certain religion, 'while not otherwise offensive to the feelings of
those professing another [aitn.':"

There were four (4) witnesses who presented themselves and

emphatically declared that they were offended and insulted by the
very same actuations of the petitioner which caused the religious
ceremony to be disrupted."

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were give full

faith and credit by the MeTC and the RTC. In. its Decision, the MeTC
held that,

"The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses here were

delivered in a spontaneous, natural and straightforward manner. The
truth of said testimonies conform to common knowledge, observation
and experience of mankind, if taken under the circumstances
surrounding the case. Moreover, the testimony of Fr. Oscar Alunday,
SVD could not be doubted, considering that he is just more than one
meter away from the scene where accused held the placard.
Accordingly, his testimonq deservesfull faith and credit. 1/33

Feelings of the faithful may be interpreted to refer to the religious

feelings of the faithful, as can be gleaned from the title of Article 133,
Offending the Religious Feelings. Corollarily, since the criminalized
act must be corrunitted in a place devoted to religious worship or
during a religious ceremony, then the faithful must refer to those
who are inside this place devoted to religious worship or those
engaged in the religious worship at the time of the corrunission of the
act.

In the instant case, the acts of the petitioner were committed

inside the Manila Cathedral. Consequently, said acts were viewed as
notoriously offensive to the feelings of those properly identified as
the members of the Catholic Church and other persons present and
attending the ecumenical service inside the Manila Cathedral at that
time.

31 People us, Baes, G.R No. 46000. May 25, 1939,

32
Rollo, p.23.
33 RoUo, p.99.

[Type here]
 ICA. CR CR No. 36170 14 of 23
DECTSION

One final point, the RTC correctly observed that the acts of the
petitioner were meant to mock, insult and ridicule those clergy
whose beliefs and principles were diametrically opposed to his
own." Thus, the petitioner cannot argue that good faith is a defense.

It is worth observing that petitioner's acts prior to raising his

placard inside the Manila Cathedral in front of various religious
leaders and others in attendance during an event, would show that
he was aware of the consequences of his acts. Indeed, a reasonable
person would have foreseen a probability that the bishops and others
in attendance would be exposed to the risk of ridicule and insult.

Noteworthy is the testimony of Ms. Ria Regina Limjap, wherein

she revealed the circumstances of the petitioner's plan to publicize his
intended act by handing her a camera to take pictures to be posted in
Facebook." Undoubtedly, petitioner's act was intentional since he
meant to publish a photo of him doing the criminal act.

At any rate, petitioner did not testify to prove his good faith
and lack of criminal intent. His actions prior to and after he raised his
placard inside the cathedral belie his claim of good faith.

All things considered, all the elements of Offending the

Religious Feelings punishable under Article 133 of the RPC are
present to uphold the petitioner's conviction. For all its conceded
merits the petitioner cannot give any additional meaning to the clear
I

and plain language of the law.

Second Assigned Error

Article 133 of the Revised Penal

Code does not violate the 1987
Philippine Constitution.

The petitioner's contention that the RTC erred when it did not
declare Article 133 of the RPC unconstitutional is misplaced.
34
Rollo. p.23.
35
Rollo,p.489; T.S.N. 27 June 2012. p.ll.

[Type here]
 Ic.A, GR CR No. 36170 15 of 23
DECISION

At the outset, we find that the attack on the constitutionality of

the law of which he IS being charged with should not be
countenanced.

The cases of Demetria vs. Alba" and Francisco vs. House of

Representatives" cite the "seven pillars" of the limitations to the
power of judicial review", as enunciated in the concurring opinion of
U'S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in Ashwander vs.
Tennessee Valley Authority". It states, among others that, "x x x
When the validity of an act of Congress is drawn in question, and even if a
serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this
Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly
possible by which the question may be avoided",

In the same vein, to pass upon the constitutionality of the

statute as questioned by the petitioner is akin to indirectly allowing a
litigant to assail the constitutionality of a statute every time he is
charged with a violation of a provision of law, Inescapably, this
would create a dangerous precedent wherein the accused can merely
assail the constitutionality of the law to escape liability therefrom.
This, our courts, should not condone.
1

36 232 Phil. 222 (1987).

37 460 Phil. 830 (2003),
38 ;;1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary,
proceeding, declining because to decide such questions 'is legiurnate only in the last resort, and as a
necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the
thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an
inquiry as to the constitu tionaliLyof tile legislative act.' x xx.
2. TIle Court will not 'anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of dectdtng it.'
x x x. 'It is not tile habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely
necessary to a decision of the case.'
3. The Court wlll not 'formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to
which it is to be applied.' x x x.
4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if
there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found
most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds. one involving a
constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law. the Court will
decide only the Jatter. x x x. -
5. The Court will not pass upon tile Validityof a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is
injured by its operation. x x x, Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the
denial of U1eright of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, tile challenge by a
public offlctalinterested only in the performance of his officialduty will not be entertained. x xx.
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed
himself of its benefits. x xx.
7. "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, ancl even if a serious doubt of
constitutionality is raised. it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a
construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided...
39 297 U.S. 288 (1936).

11

[Type here]
 1c.A. GR CR No. 36170 16 of 23
DECISION

Emphasis must also be placed to the fact that first and foremost,
Article 133 of the RPC should be presumed valid and constitutional.
When confronted with a constitutional question, it is elementary that
every court must approach it with grave care and considerable
caution bearing in mind that every statute is presumed valid and
every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of its
constitutionality."

Petitioner is reminded of the case of People vs. Ricardo Limaco",

wherein the Supreme Court held in this wise:

It is a well settled rule that the courts are not concerned with
/I

the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws. That question falls exclusively

within the province of the Legislature which enacts them and the Chief
Executive who approves or vetoes them. The only function of the
judiciary is to interpret the laws and, if not in disharmony with the
Constitution, to apply them. x x x while they as citizens or as judges
may regard a certain law as harsh, unwise or morally wrong, and may
recommend to the authority 01' department concerned, its amendment,
modification, or repeal, still, as long as said law is in force, the1j must
apply it and give effect as decreed by the law-making body,"42

We find that there was no infringement of the petitioner's right

to free speech and expression nor was there a violation of the equal
protection clause and non-establishment clause of the 1987
Constitution.

First, Article 133 is not violative of petitioner's constitutional

right to free speech and expression.

The petitioner contends that Article 133 of the RPC violates

Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which states that:

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of

/I

speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to

assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. /I

40
People Q{ the Philippines us, Evangeline Slton y SaciZ and Krystel Kate Sagamno y Mefania; G,R. No.
169364. Septell11)er 18. 2009. citing Weson us. Executive SecretanJ. G.R. No. 128096. January 20. 1999.
301 SeRA 298.
41
G.R. No. L-3090, 9 January 1951.
42
People oj tile PhUippines vs. Hon. Loretizo B. Veneracion. C.R. Nos. 119987-88. 12 October 1995 citing
People us. Limaco. 88 Phil. 36 (1951).

[Type here]
 C.A. GR CR No. 36170 17 of 23
ID E CI S TON

For petitioner, Article 133 of the RPC is a form of state

regulation of speech and conduct through the imposition of
subsequent punishment." Petitioner further argues that Article 133 is
an overbroad law that criminalizes a substantial amount of
/I

constitutionally protected speech and accords the police

unconstitutional discretion in enforcement.T"

It adds
that the absence of an objective standard in the
determination of "acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful'! opens Article 133 to a First Amendment (free speech) void
for vagueness challenge, leaving thereon the offended party
unlimited power to decide which speech would constitute the
offense."

To amplify, petitioner alleged that RTC is criminalizing the

expression of an idea, when the court suggested that the word
'DAMASO' is not protected speech but rather an insulting word."

In its Decision, the RTC emphasized that the right to free

speech does not guarantee an unbridled license to say what ever one
may wish to, each individual should be circumspect in setting loose
every word that flows from his/her mouth."

Applying thereon the case of Philippines Journalist, Inc. et al vs.

Francis Thoenen'", the trial court found that notoriously offending the
religious feelings may come in the form of insulting words which are
intended to ridicule the dogma, practice or ritual of a religion. It
added further that a person of ordinary understanding could readily
be aware upon perusal of Article 133 of the RPC that he/she is not
supposed to do acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful such as uttering unprotected speech while inside a place
43
RoUo.p.60l.
44 RoUo.p.631. cmng Houston us. Hill. Id at 458.
45
Rollo.p.632.
46 Ibid.
47
Rollo,p.31.
48
G.R. No. 143372. December 2005: "But no; all speech is protectecL The right qffree speech is not absolute
at. all limes and under aU circwnstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited cLasses qf
speech. the preventuni wld punishment oj which has neuer been thoug/lt to raise any Cons(:if:l1(ional
problem. These incLude the Lewd and obscene. the profane, ihe HbeLous.and the CnsuLLirtgor TtghLing' uords
- chose which by iheir very urrerance irl/licr iIyury or tend to incite Wl immedia1.e breach Of the peoce.x x x"

[Type here]
 eA. GR CR No. 36170 18 of 23
l
DECISION

devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any

religious ceremony."

We hold that the argument of the petitioner that Article 133 of

the RPC violates his right to freedom of expression cannot be
sustained.

Freedom of speech is violated when speech is restricted or

punished even if the speech does not present a clear and present
danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.
The Supreme Court has often stressed that freedom of speech is not
absolute, and must be balanced with the requirements of equally
important public interests."

Article 133 of the RPC is clear when it penalizes acts

notoriously offensive to the faithful inside a place devoted for
religious worship. Under the RPC, it can be gleaned from Title Two -
Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the State and Section Four
- Crimes Against Religious vVorship thereof, that Article 133 has the
purpose of guaranteeing the free exercise of one's religion including
the preservation of the sanctity and solemnity of these places.
Undoubtedly, the public interest served by Article 133 of the RPC, is
the maintenance of peace and order i.n said religious place or
religious ceremonies.

A careful perusal of the facts of the case would reveal that the
act of the petitioner in going to the front of the altar, during
ecumenical service, and raising a placard with the word 'DAMASO'
inflicts injury or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace in
that place of worship. Therefore, the act of petitioner inside the
cathedral is what Article 133 of the RPC seeks to penalize.

As enunciated by the Supreme Court in one case, "x x x It has

been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any
exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that
any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the
49
Rollo. p.31.
50
Zaldivar us, Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316, 354; Lucas us. Royo, 344 SCR\ 481, 490; Chavez us. Gonzales, 545
SCRA 441 (2008).

[Type here]
 ICA. GR CR No. 36170 19 of 23 I
DECISION

social interest in order and morality.51" Thus, the public interest served
by Article 133 of the RPC takes precedence over the petitioner's right
to free speech inside a place devoted for worship.

Second, Article 133 does not encroach upon the equal protection
clause of the constitution.

The petitioner contends that Article 133 of the RPC violates

Section I, Article III of the Constitution, which states that:

"Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or

property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws. "

For petitioner, Article 133 of the RPC is a penal statute that

specifically protects the feelings and the beliefs of religious persons,
for it unduly favors one class or group (the religious people or those
who maintain beliefs based on faith) over another (the irreligious, the
atheist, the pagan, and holders of beliefs which are not religious)."

Petitioner argues that while Article 133 does not manifestly

discriminate speech and ideas, the suppression becomes obvious in
the law's application as the faithful or believers now claim that the
word 'DAMASQ' is a 'notoriously offensive act' to their 'feelings'."

Applying the case of Ernesto Gonzales et al vs. Central Azucarera

de Tarlac Labor Union et aZS4, the RTC found that the purpose of this
law is for the unbelievers of a religion to respect the rights and beliefs
of the believers who are equally entitled to the state's protection and
for them to have a peaceful and orderly co-existence which is
essential in a civilized society.P

We uphold the findings of the RTC.

51
PhiL Journalists Inc.. us. Thoenen, 477 SCRA 482 (2005), citing Chaplinsky us. New Hampshire, 315 U.S.
568, 62 Ct. 766. 86 L.Ed. I O~31.
52
Rollo. p.645.
53
Rollo, p.647.
54 G.R. No. L-38178. October 3. 1985.
55
Rollo, p.30.

[Type here]
 ICA. GR CR No. 36170 20 of 23 I
DECISION

Primarily, it should be borne in mind that religious freedom,

although not unlimited, is a fundamental personal right and liberty,
and has a preferred position in the hierarchy of values." It has been
said that the religious clauses of the Constituti.on are all designed to
protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man
to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs. and to live
as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others
and with the common good.57

The case of People vs. Cayat58 summarized the jurisprudence on

equal protection, thus:

/I It is an established principle of constitutional

law that the
guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a
legislation based on reasonable classification. And the classification, to
be reasonable, (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be
.germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing
conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same
class. rr

Petitioner assails the constitutionality of Article 133 of the RPC

for being violative of the first and second requirements stated above.
It avers that it makes a distinction between believers and non-
believers and uses the same as the basis to punish speech or conduct
deemed offensive to the believers' feelings.

The petitioner's assertions lack substance. There is a reasonable

distinction between those who have a religion and those who do not.
In addition, Article 133 is germane to the purpose of the law which is
to seek the protection of the right of the religious to the free exercise
of their religion.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the equal protection

clause requires equality among equals as determined according to a
valid classification. By classification is meant the grouping of persons
or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different
from all others in these same particulars."
56
Ernesto G. Gonzales. et aL us. Central Azucarera De Tartac Labor Union, G.R. No. L-38178, October 3, 1985.
57 Ibid.
58
68 Phil. 12,18 (1939).
59 Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, 227 SCR:\ 703.

[Type here]
 CA. GR CR No. 36170 21 of 23
DECISION

Third, Article 133 does not infringe the non-establishment

clause of the constitution.

The petitioner contends that Article 133 of the RPC violates

Section 5, Article III of the Constitution or the Non-Establishment
Clause, which states that:

"Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establ-ishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination
or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights."

For petitioner, the Non-Establishment Clause prohibits the state

from promoting a religion over other religions or non-religious
groups by shielding them from criticism. It avers that with Article
133, the state ceases to be neutral, and comes to the aid of religion by
punishing legitimate speech for offending the mere 'feelings' of the
'faithful' .60

In applying the so-called Lemon Test", the petitioner argued

that: (a) Article 133 has no secular legislative purpose, the subject of
the law being solely the protection of the 'feelings' of the believers';
(b) Article 133 has the principal effect of promoting religion as it
shields the latter from any and all types of criticism; and (c) the law
creates an UIU1.eCessaryentanglement with religion, the state being
judge, jury and executioner of individuals that the religious may
consider guilty of offending their feelings.f

In the RTC Decision, it was held that the purposes of Article

133 of the RPC, albeit beneficial and advancing the interests of those
practicing religion, is secular in nature, and thus, it is not violative of
non-establishment clause of the constitution."
60
Rollo. p.640.
61
Rollo. p.640-641. Citing the case of Lemon us. Kurtzman. 403 U.S. 602 (1971) which formulated three
crttena to test the constitutionality of a law dealing with religion under the Non-Establishment Clause. to
wit: "First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose: second, its pnnctpal or primary elTect
must be one that neither advances nor Inlubtts religion: flnally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive
entanglement with religion.'
62
Rollo. pp.641-642.
63
Rollo. p.28.

[Type here]
 _-

Ic.A. GR CR No. 36170 22 of 23

DECISIO I

We uphold the finding of the RTC in this case.

Non-establishment of religion is violated when the State shows

preference for one religion over others or prefers religion to no
religion.

Article 133 of the RPC is a crime against the free exercise of

religion clause" mandated by our Constitution. Indisputably, the
purpose of this penal statute is to impose punitive measures to those
who would ridicule and show disdain to the feelings and sentiments
of the faithfuls while inside a place devoted to religious worship or in
celebration of a religious ceremony.

Thus, the RTC was correct when it found that in conformity

with one's right to free exercise of religion, the faithfuls may, within
the limits set by laws, rightfully practice and observe their beliefs,
unimpeded by unfair interference from other people." It goes
without saying that those people observing a certain form of religion
or sect are equally entitled to the state's protection as any of its
citizens.

Arguably, we do not agree with petitioner's contention that

Article 133 of the RPC shield religion from criticism. Article 133 of the
RPC does not penalize criticisms or any form of speech. It imposes a
penal sanction on anyone who performs acts notoriously offensive to
the feelings of the faithful done inside a place devoted to religious
worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony. The
petitioner cannot give any additional meaning to the clear and plain
language of the law.

Accordingly, the penalty for violation of Article 133 of the

Revised Penal Code peruses:

"The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision

correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who,
in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any
64 Section 5. Article Ill. 1987 Constitution.
65
Rollo. p.27.

[Type here]
 leA. GR CR No. 36170
DECISION
---------------------------------------
23 of 23

religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the

feelings of the faithful.
/I

Therefore, We find that the RTC properly imposed the penalty

of an indeterminate prision term of two (2) months and twenty one
(21) days of arresto mayor, as minimum to one (1) year, one (1) month
and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as maximum with cost de
oficio.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is

DENIED. Accordingly, the 12 August 2013 Decision and the Order
dated 11 November 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 32 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

('n TGINAl SIGNED

CARMELITA SALANDANAN MANAHAN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

"'nlG1NAL SIGN!::: ()RIGINAL SIGNED

JAPAR B. DIMAAMPAO ELIHU A. YBANEZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

t"'H~'r"~AtSIGNEO'
JAPAR B. DIMAAMPAO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Twelfth Division

[Type here]