Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Damaso Case
Damaso Case
CA-G.R.
en No.
36170
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}
Copy furnished:
Dellosa Mendoza Bag-Ao & Manuel
reg.w/rc
Counsel
Petitioner
for
Collaborating
Petitioner
Counsel
for
JRD-CA
[Type here]
ISDD-CA
ARCHIVES-CA
reg wire
Imdby
[Type here]
Peti tioner ,
Members:
Respondent.
DIMAAMPAO I.E.,
Chairperson,
YBANEZ, E.A., &
MANAHAN C.S., Jf.
Promulgated:
t":EC 1 2 2014
)(
-----------
-rt
-------------------------------------------
DEC I S ION
c: '('-J ~
W
SALANDANAN-MANAHAN,
J.:
3
4
Rollo.pp.11-32. 101-122.
Rollo. p.33, 123.
Rollo. pp.92-99.
)(
2 of 23
DECISION
Rollo. p.32.
Rollo. p.124.
3 of 23
DECISION
4 of 23
DECISION
5 of 23
leA.
GR CR No. 36170
DECISION
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 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 (accusedappellant) 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
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.
/I
6 of 23
DECISION
the
called
8
9
10
11
Rollo. pp.12-15.
Rollo. pp.126-152.
Rollo, p.125. The Order of the MeTe dated 11 Apr1l2012.
Rollo, pp.155-161.
Rollo, pp.162-164.
ICA.
GR CR No. 36170
DECISION
7 of 23
8 of 23
(hereinafter
called
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
12
13
Rolio,pp.16-18.
Supra, note 4.
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
11
Ro 0 . pp.168-169.
15 .Supra. note. 2 .
16
RoUo, p.32.
17
18
Rollo, pp.228-360.
Supra, note 3.
19 Ro110, 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.
10 of 23
DECISION
following
assignment
of errors
are
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
25
26
Rollo,p.674.
Rollo,p.40.
Rollo,p.41.
11 of 23
DEClSION
the
Religious Feelings mean when it crirninalizes "acts notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful"?
27
12 of 23
29
Rollo, p.98.
30 Leonor D, Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 399 (2008).
13 of 23
~DECISION
----------------------------------------------,
33
RoUo, p.99.
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
and plain language of the law.
I
Rollo. p.23.
15 of 23
DECISION
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).
1c.A. GR CR No.
16 of 23
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 is a 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 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
/I
/I
40
41
42
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.
G.R. No. L-3090, 9 January
1951.
People oj tile PhUippines vs. Hon. Loretizo B. Veneracion. C.R. Nos. 119987-88.
People us. Limaco. 88 Phil. 36 (1951).
12 October 1995
citing
17 of 23
ID E CI S TON
It adds
RoUo.p.60l.
Rollo,p.31.
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"
18 of 23
DECISION
devoted to religious
religious ceremony."
worship
or during
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
50
Rollo. p.31.
Zaldivar us, Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316, 354; Lucas us. Royo, 344 SCR\ 481, 490; Chavez us. Gonzales, 545
SCRA 441 (2008).
19 of 23
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. "
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.
Rollo. p.645.
Rollo, p.647.
55
Rollo, p.30.
20 of 23
DECISION
the jurisprudence
on
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.
21 of 23
the non-establishment
Rollo. p.640.
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.
_-
22 of 23
23 of 23
---------------------------------------
TGINAl SIGNED
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
"'nlG1NAL SIGN!::: JAPAR
B. DIMAAMPAO
Associate Justice
()RIGINAL SIGNED
ELIHU A. YBANEZ
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