CARLOS CELDRAN Y PAMINTUAN V.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS
Petitioner Celdran is accused to have willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously disrespected and
offended the feelings of various religious leaders when during a church service in the Manila
Cathedral, he displayed a board bearing the word DAMASO. Petitioner pleaded not guilty, but the
prosecution presented evidence anchored on testimonies regarding the incident. Petitioner filed a
Deurrer to Evidence, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements of the crime
charged against him, and he also contested against the constitutionality of Art. 133 of the RPC.
Petitioners Demurrer to Evidence was denied for lack of merit, and eventually the MeTC found
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Offending the Religious Feelings as
provided under Art. 133 of the RPC. Petitioner then appealed to the RTC, but the RTC affirmed the
ruling of the MeTC, and though he fled a motion for reconsideration, it was also dismissed for lack of
merit.
ISSUE
(1) Whether or not petitioner Celdran is guilty of the crime of Offending the Religious Feeling as
provided under Art. 133 of the RPC.
(2) Whether or not Art. 133 of the RPC is unconstitutional
HELD
(1) Yes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner Celdran for the crime of Offending
the Religious Feeling as provided under Art. 133 of the RPC. The elements of Offending the Religious
Feeling as provided under Art. 133 of the RPC are: (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 be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful, and the CA held that these elements
are present in the case at bar.
The first element is present considering that the incident was committed by the petitioner
Celdran during the celebration of a religious ceremony inside the Manila Cathedral, a place devoted
to religious worship, the second anniversary of the May They Be One Bible Campaign, and the
launching of the Hand Written Bible which coincided with the feast day of Saint Gerome where many
people from various religions attended.
The second element is also present. Acts as applied in Art. 133 may come in the form of
words, overt behavior, deeds or anything which is knowingly performed by a person, symbolic or
otherwise, and that it is not confined to merely be limited to voluntary body movement guided to
obtain a determined end. The petitioner is said to have dressed in black suit and hat, walked through
the middle aisle in the front of the altar of the Manila Cathedral, and that he displayed the placard with
the word DAMASO in front of the entire assembly, and that after being escorted outside, he blurted
out Dont meddle in politics
Notoriously offensive as provided in Art. 133, is meant to mean those which causes
someone to feel resentful, upset or annoyed, and the offense is judged from the point of view of the
complainant and not the offender. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that they were
indeed offended and insulted by the actions of the petitioner, and such testimonies were given full
faith and credit by the MeTC and RTC.
Feelings of the faithful as provided in Art. 133 is meant to refer to the religious feelings of the
faithful or those inside the place devoted to religious worship or those engaged in religious worship at
the time of the commission of the act.
In the case at bar, all of the elements to apply Art.133 were indeed present.
(2) No. The Court of Appeals held that the attempts of those accused to have violated a provision of
law, to question the laws constitutionality in order to escape liability, should not be condone. The
Judiciary works upon the presumption that Art. 133 of the RPC is valid and constitutional, and that
there should be grave care and considerate caution in confronting the constitutionality of a statute.

The CA held that Art .1333 does not violate the petitioners constitutional right to free speech
and expression, since the right to free speech does not guarantee an unbridled license to say
whatever one wishes, and that notoriously offending and insulting words are considered as
unprotected speech while done inside a place of religious worship. Since the freedom of speech is
not absolute, such freedom must be balanced with the requirements of equally important public
interests. Art. 133 guaranties the free exercise of ones religion and the preservation of the sanctity
and solemnity of places of worship.
Art. 133 also does not encroach upon the equal protection clause of the Constitution, as the
purpose of the provision is for the unbelievers of a religion to respect the rights and beliefs of
believers who are equally entitled to the States protection, and in order for them to have a peaceful
and orderly co-existence. The distinction made between those who have a religion and those who
dont is reasonable, and Art. 133 is germane to the purpose of the law which is to protect the rights of
the religious and their free exercise thereof.
Art. 133 also does not infringe the non-establishment clause of the Constitution, as the
purposes of the provision, though beneficial and advancing the interests of those practicing religion, is
secular in nature and not violative of the non-establishment clause, because there will only be a
violation of the non-establishment clause when the State shows preference for religion over no
religion. Art. 133 addresses a crime against the free exercise of religion clause, as its purpose is to
impose measures to those who ridicule and show disdain in a place of religious worship or in
celebration of a religious ceremony.
Art. 133 cannot be held to be a shield of religion against criticism, as it does not penalize
criticisms, but only those who perform notoriously offensive acts against the feelings of the faithful
inside a place of worship or during the celebration of a religious ceremony.