There is no bias in the case of Carlos Celdran Pamintuan vs People except to the

interpretation of what is offensive to the feelings of the faithful. It pose a question of whether
how could the court arrive at a rule that a certain act is notoriously offensive to the feelings
of the faithful. It very subjective that not all may agree that the act is offensive. What is the
formula of the court in the determination of the violation of Art. 133 of the Revised Penal
Code? The court even said that Notoriously offensive may be i n t e r p r e t e d to m e a n
something made known which causes someone to feel r e s e n t f u l , upset or
annoyed. It is viewed from t h e s t a n d a r d of any r e l i g i o n as being offensive.
The act is offensive t o a religious w h e t h e r he is a member of the particular religion
c o n c e r n e d or not; whether he is present or absent thereat." Moreover, it bears
articulating that the offense is judged f r o m the point o f 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.
One may argue that it is really offensive to the feelings of the faithful and the others
who have different religion may not have the same view. It is very subjective. So how does
the court arrive into a conclusion that Pamintuans act is unlawful when one of the witnesses
presented for the evidence and probably several who were present in the religious event did
not take Pamintuans act as offensive. Considering that the evidence required in criminal
prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt how the court did decided this of Carlos
Celdran Pamintuan case when not all who were present at that event considered it as
maligning. How did the Justices and Judges arrived at ta conviction when if one of the
witnesses in the criminal prosecution imposes a real doubt in their mind if it is really a
maligning or offensive act or not.
The case was decided in doubtful and objective application of the Article 133 of the
Revised Penal Code of the Philippines Offending the Religious Feelings. The Elements
of the aforesaid are1 (1) That the acts complained of were performed (a) in a place devoted to
religious worship or (b) during the celebration of any religious ceremony and (2) that the acts
must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. It is very clear that the requisites
of the crime were present as Carlos Celdran Pamintuan (Pamintuan for brevity) have
performed the act of raising a cardboard to which the word Damaso is written in the
religious place which is specifically in Minor Basilica and the acts of raising it in front of
many religious leaders and government enforcers present at that time was obviously an act
which is notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful because it is very clear from the
case and the evidence presented by the accused that Pamintuan had the intention to mock or
insult the religious leaders or the faithful people who were present at that time. Criminal intent
is obvious because even his friend Ms. Limjap who testified have said that Pamintuan even
gave her a camera to capture some images of the acts of Pamintuan while executing his
mocking act. It may be argued that the crime is bias because the requisite notoriously
1

Luis B. Reyes. The Revised Penal Code. Book II. p. 80 (2012).

offensive to the feelings of the faithful depends on the complainant side and not to those
majority people present at that time the act was done. Even assuming arguendo that it is not
offensive to all the people present at the church, experience, if not conscience would tell us
that Pamintuans Act was really executed to insult or malign the Church or the religious
leaders. Even the mind of an ordinary prudent man would determine that the act was
offensive. Not even good faith can be a good defense at the case for Pamintuan. He should
have done it in a proper way or venue and not in a place where religious celebration was being
held. Pamintuan has deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful because he was a
Pro-RH bill and the Church for obvious reasons was against the Bill. He has no other intent
but to disturb the Religious celebration through his execution of offensive act. Motive of
Pamintuan which was to insult the religious leaders were clearly established in the case.
Even if I am convinced that this case is a clear violation of law, on the other side, I
am not convinced that it suffices the proof needed in criminal prosecution. It really created a
doubt in my mind of how can the court determine the unlawfulness of the act of Pamintuan.
It should be important to stress out that the Court failed to lay down concrete reasons for the
validity or the presence of the requisite number two. The court did not even presented enough
explanation or did not give any explanation at all in arriving at a conclusion that requisite
number two exist.
2

The act must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose
of ridicule, as mocking or scoffing at or attempting to damage an object of religious
veneration. In the case at bar, Pamintuan executed the act wilfully and feloniously for the
purpose of degrading the religions of the religious leaders present at that time in the church.
There is no doubt that even a man of ordinary intelligence would tell us that the Pamintuans
act was maligning and intended to destroy the reputation of the Religious leaders and the
faithful present at that time. The act of raising a cardboard with Damaso written in it in
front of many religious leaders may not only be offensive to the faithful who do not know the
historical background of the word Damaso as it was written in the literary works of Jose Rizal.
The word Damaso was a priest who known to be fat, corrupt and arrogant and had done
many acts against the Catholic faith. In short the word Damaso meant to be a controversial
priest. Bringing that word in the face of religious leaders while a very important religious
event was happening a Minor Basilica is a felonious act which is intended to bring destruction
to the images of the religious Leaders, the Catholic Church and other religions present at that
time.
The act per se is not really offensive to the feelings of the faithful but the time of
execution or the purpose of the execution which makes it a crime. It is different when one
executed Pamintuans act in a play or drama but it is also different when Pamintuans act is
done in a place devoted to a religious worship with all the religious leaders present at that
time. Bad faith was also present in the case. Pamintuan should have realized that there is a
better way of criticizing or expressing his redress of grievance in the issue of RH Bill. He
could have done it through a letter or in a radio or even in television but the element of respect
2

Viada; People v. Baes, 68 Phil. 203

must always be there. One has to remember that the right to speech is not absolute, in fact no
right is absolute. Pamintuan, as an artist, should have foreseen the fact that his act will
absolutely malign the faithful in the church. He was so reckless that all that was in his mind
that time was to insult the church by expressing his assent to RH Bill through raising the
cardboard in the church.
Offense to the feelings of the faithful is judged or determined from the complainants
point of view. The purpose of the law was not to side the complainant but the law clearly
implies that the court should put itself to the shoes of the complainant and from that point the
court will determine if whether or not the act were really offensive to the feelings of the
faithful. The goal of the law was to determine carefully from the complainants view if the
act was really intended to malign or insult the religious feelings. It is but just to determine it
at the complainants side and not on those who did not complain but present at the time the
complained act was performed because it would be impossible for the court to determine if it
would put itself to the shoes of those who are not complaining but in fact the act complained
of was really insulting to religious feelings. Logic then would tell us that by putting the court
at the position or side of the complainant, a better and accurate determination would be
determined by the court if such complained acts were offensive.
Even when we say that the act is determined if it is offensive or not at the
complainants view of point, it should also be noted that the determination should extend to
all the people present at that time when the act was executed. From that point of view, the
shallow point starts to be recognized. It should be noticed that the court convicted Pamintuan
for violation of Art. 133 of R.P.C. But how the Court did came up with its decision when
Atty. Monsod who is a Catholic himself and was present at that time did not consider
Pamintuans act as offensive. How could that satisfy the proof needed in criminal prosecution
when in fact a serious doubt is posed whether the requisite number 2 exist or how did exist at
all?
The right to religion must also be protected from any intrusion. Proper discipline and
respect must be observed by anyone towards any religion. Respect begets respect. In other
words, even though no people is compelled to have any religion, the state through the
Constitution guarantees the protection of religions from any kind of offensive intrusion by
criminalizing those acts which are offensive to religious feelings of the faithful. Pamintuan
should have realized that his acts would absolutely offend the feelings of the faithful. A man
cannot just invoke his freedom of speech or expression without any limitation because all
speeches and expressions must be within the bounds of the law and it must not be overlapping
to the freedom of other people. Right of a person ends where the right of other person
begins. Hence, no right is really absolute. Limits to ones freedom or right must be observed
as Pamintuan had failed to observe the limits imposed by law to his acts. Pamintuan should
have realized that we are not in a world of nature where everyone can do whatever he wants
in order to survive. Pamintuan may have forgotten that we are governed by laws which make
our society living in peace. Pamintuans act may have been probably brought only though his
anger against the church by going against the RH Bill but Pamintuans act cannot be sustained
because the law requires that Pamintuan should observed the law by doing such acts in order

to avoid liability otherwise we are promoting lawlessness with respect to the protection of
religions of the people.
The witnesses presented by the prosecution and the defense except Atty. Monsod,
who were all present at the moment when the offensive and notorious act of Pamintuan
were all pointing out to a certain result that the act of Pamintuan in raising a placard with
Basilio written in it in front of priests, cardinal and other pertinent Church authorities was
really offensive to the feelings of the faithful. Even the testimony of Ms. Limjap who was a
witness for the defense, have impliedly said that the act of his friend (Pamintuan) was
maligning. It is really directed against the Church, Religious authorities and the religions
itself. Pamintuan should have used a better venue in expressing his feelings against the
position of the church in the RH Bill. Even if we say that the Church is against the RH Bill
and Pamintuan is Pro-RH Bill, logic would tell us that, it is not a valid reason for interrupting
a very important religious events. It does not give Pamintuan a license to destruct, malign and
degrade the feelings of the faithful. Pamintuan should have been more prudent in choosing
the proper venue for expressing his grievances against the church because the freedom of
expression is not absolute. It is not an open blanket that is so sweeping to the extent that the
rights of the other people are violated or infringed.
Pamintuans argument that art. 133 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC for brevity) is
unconstitutional cannot be sustained. Since Pamintuan cannot prove that his acts were not
violative of art. 133 of RPC, he attacked the constitutionality of the law punishing his acts.
This cannot be entertained for a valid and logical reason. Pamintuan now tries to evade his
punishment by attacking the law itself. This argument is a clear act of a desperate move in
order to avoid the consequences of his maligning act. To let Pamintuans act to be a valid
ground to attack the constitutionality of the law punishing his act would open the gates of
fraud towards the law. It will be giving chance of evading punishment to a certain criminal
who have certainly violated the law. For this act, Pamintuan is really obvious that he is guilty
under art. 133 of RPC.
Statutory construction or interpretation is needed. All the requisites for violating the
law is laid down and it is all present in the case at bar but there is a question of the existence
or how did the court came up with the decision confirming the existence of requisite number
two. We cannot say that the law favors the people with a religion and deprives the people
who do not have a religion. The law is always fair in that it both protects the rights of the
religious and those who dont have. The law tries to be neutral and avoid conflicts between
them in order to have peace and harmony. Those who have religion cannot dominate those
who do not have a religion and vice versa. It treats them equally situated for all intents and
purposes. On the other hand the court should lay down the pertinent provisions of law or
doctrines or reasons in coming up with a conviction. The court should have concentrated
more on how it can be ruled that a certain act is offensive to the religious feelings of the
faithful or not. Verba Legis cannot be applied.
The law is also given the presumption of its validity and it is the burden of the person
who invoke the unconstitutionality of the law being attacked to lay down pieces of evidence

and reasons to establish unconstitutionality. He must prove it beyond reasonable doubt. In the
case at bar, Pamintuan did not established that Art. 133 is really unconstitutional. His
argument that the law criminalizes his constitutional freedom of expression is devoid of merit
for the reasons already stated above. The burden is on Pamintuan and he failed to establish
the invalidity of the law. Hence, art. 133 of RPC should be sustained to be Constitutional and
valid for all intents and purposes.
This case should have been decided with a clear disposition and explanation on how
did the court arrived at a conclusion. The court should always be careful in arriving at a
judgment because what is affected by a silly judgment is ones right to liberty which is a very
fundamental right. It should also be worth important to be noted that when there is doubt, the
case should be resolved in favor of the accused. This is a clear case of doubt which should be
resolved in favour of the accused. After all, his acts may still qualify as a ground for civil case
where a preponderance of evidence and not a proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed.
Dura lex sed lex cannot be invoked by the court without laying down the valid
grounds in determination of the the existence of the requisite number two which is, that the
act is notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
This case maybe a violation of Art. 133 of the R.P.C. but to reiterate, it doesnt
suffice the proof needed in criminal prosecution to arrive at a conviction. There is a doubt.
3

There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful. It is very obvious
that Pamintuan has a criminal intent to malign and destroy the reputation of the church and
its authorities. He even have the purpose of publishing it online or on the web for
dissemination purposes which in my view will aggravate his offense but the court did not
established the formula in arriving at a rule that Pamintuans act really qualifies as an
offensive act to the feelings of the faithful.
Therefore, this case should have been decided in favour of accused Carlos Celdran
Pamintuan and the case should be dismissed for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Luis B. Reyes. The Revised Penal Code. Book II. p. 81 (2012).