REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS MANILA, CARLOS CELDRAN y PAMINTUAN, Petitioner, - versus - CA-G.R. CR No. 36170 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent December 12, 2014 NOTICE OF DECISION Greetings: Please take notice that on December 12, 2014, 2 DECISION, copy 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. Copy furnished: Dellosa Mendoza Bag-Ao & Manuel- reg.w/te Counsel for Petitioner 3" Floor, Prince David Condominium Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights 1108 Quezon City Lagman Lagman & Mones Law Firm- reg.w/.te Collaborating Counsel for Petitioner 2/F Tempus Place Hl Condominium Makatarungan and Matalino Sts., Diliman, 1104 Quezon City JRD-CA ISDD-CA Imiby Respectfully yours, TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN Clerk of Court By: J er en : Division Clerk of Court ~ Roque & Butuyan Law Offices ~ reg.w/rc Collaboraitng Counsel for Petitioner 1904 Antel Corporate Centre, 121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village 1227 Makati City Office of the Solicitor General - reg w/re Counsel for Repsondent 134 Amorsolo St, Legaspi Village 1229 Makati City Hon. Presiding Judge - reg w/re Regional Trial Court Branch 32 1000 Manila ARCHIVES-CARepublic of the Philippines Court of Appeals MANILA. TWELFTH (12') DIVISION CARLOS CELDRAN y C.A-G.R. CR NO. 36170 PAMINTUAN, Petitioner, Members: ~ versus — DIMAAMPAO J.B., Chairperson, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, YBANEZ,E.A,, & Respondent. MANAHAN CS., JJ. Promulgated: DEC 12 2014 DECISION or per Che yy 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 Rollo, pp.35-89. Rollo, pp.11-82, 101.192. © Rolle, p33. 128. * otto, pp-92-90, 2 3[C.A. GR CR No. 36170 2of 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.”* STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 1 October 2010, an Information* was filed with the MeIC, 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 City.” Petitioner was arraigned, and with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits began with the prosecution presenting four (4) witnesses. © ota, ps2 © otto, p.124[Ga GRERNe eit 308 | 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 persuations (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, Intramuras, Manila in the afternoor 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 pat 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 ng Pilipinas, was reading a passage from 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 teacher/facilitator in retreats bibliodrama all over Asia for more than 10 years, volunteer in oarious 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 twas. Wearing an odd and anachronous ouifit of black suit with a hat, accused-appellant quielly sauntered toward the center of the aisle in front of the altar and suddenly brought out a placard, approximately % of an illustration board, emblazoned with the word “DAMASO", big enough to be read up to the end of the seats at the Cathedral. He was showing it (placard) t0 the Papal Nuncio, Cardinal, and the bishops sitted (sic) in frortt 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 was, Proceeding in front to find out what was happening, she noticed that somebody twas taking accused-appellant. Commotion ensued whenCA. GR CR No. 36170 4of 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” (writien 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 (CBCP) for twelve (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, where 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 happened, she feels trauma whenever she hears the word “Damaso” Tasked with taking pictures during the subject event, Angelito 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 hint during the event which were presented 10 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 allendance 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 happened. Seving 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 secretary of the Episcopal Commission for Biblical Apostolate of the CBCP for the past eleven (11) years, it was the official role of Father Oscar Alunday 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 locaied. Strategically positioned, he saw everything that happened. There, a meter and a half away from him, he immediately noticed accused-applellant sianding right beside the media people. Accused-apyellant was then going back and forth[CA.GR CR No. 36170 Sof 23 DECISION which he did twice or thrice. The last time he did so, he brught with him a placard, holding it behind him and then he put it down, While the 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 “DAMASO” conspicuously written on it while he traipsed to the center of the aisle, in front of the altar. And soon, he faced 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, Tirona’s different style of presentation, was soon replaced with shock, agitation and a feeling of being insulted as awareness loomed upon hin 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 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 GMAT, stood up, followed by him, took and convinced accused-appellant to stay away from the center aisle. Not letting up, 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, magsisigaw 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 wished to say outside the confines of the church, With the help of the military men, they 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 hhim 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 fet offended and insulted. An intrusion of the holy religious liturgical worship, where eatholics andCA. GR CR No. 36170 bof 3 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.’” 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 $. Limjap and Atty. Christian Monsod. EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE ‘The pertinent portion of the RTC Decision reads: "Gist of Ms. Ria Regina S. “Ms, Limjap”) testimony: jap's (hereinafter called Having known accused-appellant for about ten (10) years and worked with him in a number of projects, she has come to know him both 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 artd 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 close friend 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 schaol in the United States. 7 Roto, pp.2-18. Rollo, pp.126-152, Rollo, p.125. The Order ofthe METC dated 11 April 2012. 10 Rotto, pp.155-161. © Rollo, pp. 162-164.[CA. GR CR No, 36170 of 23 [DECISION Distinctly, she remembered that in the afternoon of Septentber 30, 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 aitended by people opppesed to the Reproductive Health (REI) 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 atlire of dark pants, white shirt and black suit and hal, 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 t0 figure out whether a mass was being held at that time but sooner she realized that the answer to her mental query twas 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" writien on it. Though having no knowledge 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,CA. GR CR No. 36170 80f 23 [DECISION prompting her to think, at that juncture, that he was exhibiting 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 sitted (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 oulfit 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 “Dantaso” 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.” 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." On 28 January 2013, the MeTC rendered its Decision”, finding accused CARLOS CELDRAN y PAMINTUAN “Guilty” beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Offending the Religious Feelings 2 Rott, pp.16-18. 5 supra, note 4[C.A. GR CR No. 36170 Sof 23 [pecision 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) year, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as maximum with cost de officio. SO ORDERED.”"* 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: nding 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 DENTED for lack of merit, SO ORDERED.” Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on 23 December 2013”. Thereafter, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Comment” on 18 March 2014. Rollo, pp.168-168. 5 supra, note 2, 16 otte, p.92, 17 Rott, pp.228-360. 8 supra, note 8 9 Rollo, 123, 2° Supra, note 1. a Rollo, p44. The Petition for Review was Mist within the extended period granted per Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Special Eighth Division dated 8 January 2014,ICA.GRCRNo. 36170 é SeeeeesveeereS eee Wof 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/* THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING ARTICLE 133 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.” 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: % Rollo, pp.643-568. Pursuant to the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Former Special Eighth Division dated 15 January 2014, erecting the respondents to fle a Comment. * Rollo, p.569, 2 Rollo, p74. % Roto, p40. 28 oto, pal(CA GRERNo 3870 Tee | [pectsion } (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. 1is 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 (MIBC) 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 criminalizes “acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful”? 27 Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Cade: Book Hl, 76 (2006)CA. GR CR No, 36170 a poi B DECISION | At the outset, to help elucidate this matter, we must define each term as applied in Article 133. Acis 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.”* In the case under consideration, it has been established that the acts committed 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 Rollo, p.687, citing Cuello Calon, Derecho Penal, Vol. 1 912 (1952). The text sayst "La accion fen sentia esto) consiste en un movimiento corporal voluntari, 0 en una de movimientos conporctes, dirigttos «ta foblencion de un fin determina, 2 Roto, .98. 9° eonar D. Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Henal Cade, 399 (2008)[CA. GR CR No. 36170 “Bot 23 | DECISION profess a certain religion, while not otherwise offensive to the feelings of those professing another faith.”*" 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 mony from the scene where accused held the placard. Accordingly, his testimony deserves full faith and credit.’® 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 committed 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 commission 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. 1 people us. Baes, G.R. No, 46000, May 25, 1939. % oto, p23, Rollo, .99,Ea GRR Ne 370 es DECISION 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 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. 5 Rolle, p.23. 9 Rolle, p-489; TSN, 27 June 2012, p11.CA. 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 US. 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. 28 939 pris 222 (1987) 8? 60 Phu. 830 (2003). 58 <1. The Court will mot pass upon the constitutionality of legslation in a frendly, non-adversary. proceeding, declining, because to decide such questions 'is legitimate only in the last resort. and as a hecessily in he determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the ‘thought that, by means ofa fendly sult, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act’ xx x 2, The Court wail not anticipate a question of constitutional iaw in advance of the necessity of deciding x x x ILis not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitational nalure unless absolutely necessary (o @ decision ofthe case: ‘3. The Court will not Yormslate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise cts t0 Which 1 to be applied." x xx 4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question altho properly presemted ty the cecord, if there is also present soane other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found ‘most varied application. Thus, ia case can be decided on either of two grounds. one involving a constitutional question, the other 2 question of statutory construction or general law. the Court will ‘decide only the later. x 55. The Court wall nat pass upon the validity ofa statute upon complaint of one who fatls to show that he is ‘nfured by f(s operation, x x x. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public oficial interested only in the performance of his official daly will not be entertained. x x x. 6. The Court wll not pass upon tie consUluUonality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed Dimseif offs Denes. xx 7. When the validty of an act of the Congress is drawn in question. and even if a serious doubt of constitutionally ie raised, i is a enndinal principle that this Court Will frst ascertain whether a ‘construction ofthe statute fs fairly possible by whieh te question may be avolded.” 99 297 us. 200 (1890).16 of 23 | (C_A.GR CR No. 36170 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 isa well settled rule that the courts are not concerned with 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 or department concerned, its amendment, modification, or repeal, still, as long as said law is in force, they must apply it and give effect as decreed by the law-making body." 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 speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” * People of the Philppines us, Evangeline Sion y Sact and Krystel Kate Sagarano y Mefania, G.R. No. 165864, September 18, 2009, eiting Larson us. Exocutlve Secretary, .R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999, 301 SCRA 208, GAR. No, 1-090, 9 Jantiary 1951. People of the Phiippnes us. Hon. Lorenzo B, Veneracton, (.R. Nos, 119987-88, 12 October 1995 citing People us. Lunaco, 88 Phil. 36 (195). 41 2CA. GR CR No. 36170 17 of 23 DECISION ! 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 constitutionally protected speech and accords the _ police unconstitutional discretion in enforcement.” Tt 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 9 Rollo. p.601, “+ Rollo, p.681. citing Houston vs, Hill Id at 458, 48 Rollo, p.632. 46 na, #7 Rollo, p31 48 G.R. No, 145372, December 2005; “Bul not all speech fe protected, The right of foe speech és not absolute at all tines and under all creumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly United classes of Speech. the prevention and puxishient of wich has never been ought 10 ratse any Constitutional problem. These iichde the lewd and obscene, the profane, the Hbelous, and the insulting or fehting’ words = those which by thet very utterance byt myury or nd lo ticle an immediate breach of the peace.x xx"~1Bot 23 | | 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 Worship 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 in 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 secks 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 asa step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the #9 oto, pl 50 Zalituar vs, Gonzales, 186 SORA 316, 964; Lucas us. Royo, 344 SCRA 481, 490: Chaves vs. Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441 (2008),ICA. GR CR No. 36170 : "19 of 23 DECISION social interest in order and morality!” 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 1, 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 ‘DAMASO ‘is a ‘notoriously offensive act' to their ‘feelings’. Applying the case of Ernesto Gonzales et al vs. Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union et al™, 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.* We uphold the findings of the RTC 5? pha. Journalists Ine, vs. Thoenen, 47 SCRA 482 (2008). citing Chapltasky vs. New Hampshire, 315 US. 568, 62.Ct, 766, 86 1.20 1051 Rollo, p.645. 5° Roto, .647. S GR No. 138178, Ociober 3, 1985, 5 Roto, p.20. 52ICA. GR CR No. 36170 200f 3 | 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 Constitution 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.” The case of People vs, Cayat® summarized the jurisprudence on equal protection, thus: “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 omtly; and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class.” 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.” 8° musio G. Gonzales. et al vs. Central Azucarera De Tavlae Labor Union, G.R. No. 138178, October 3, 1985. °S ga phil 12, 18 1939) 5° prutppine Judges Association vs, Prado, 227 SCRA 703.A. GR CR No. 36170 ISTON | 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 establishment 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’ 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 unnecessary entanglement with religion, the state being judge, jury and executioner of individuals that the religious may consider guilty of offending their feelings.® 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.© © Roto, p.640. Rollo, p.640-641, citing the case of Lemon us. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) which formulated three criteria Co test the constitutionalty ofa law dealing with religion under the Non-Establishment Clause, ‘wats "Furst, Uie statute must have a secular legislauve purpose: second, sts principal or primary effect rust be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; Rnally, the statute mast not foster ‘an excessive entanglement with region, oe Rollo, pp.641-642. © Rolle, p28,[C.A. GR CR No. 36170 Dot B DECISION We uphold the finding of the RTC in this case. Nonestablishment 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, ina place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any °* Section 5, Article Il, 1987 Constitution, © Roto, p.27.[C.A.GR CR No. 36170 F 2308 23 | |DECISION religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the {feelings of the faithul.” 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. ORIGINAL SIGNEL CARMELITA SALANDANAN MANAHAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ORIGINAL SIGN: ORIGINAL SIGNED JAPAR B. DIMAAMPAO ELIHU A. YBANEZ Associate Justice Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VII, 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. ORIGINAL sian JAPAR B. DIMASMPAO Associate Justice Chairperson, Twelfth Division