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 Pamintuan’s 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 Pamintuan’s 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 Pamintuan’s 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.

2The 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 Pamintuan’s

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 Pamintuan’s act in a play or drama but it is also different when Pamintuan’s 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 complainant’s

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 complainant’s view if the

act was really intended to malign or insult the religious feelings. It is but just to determine it

at the complainant’s 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

complainant’s 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

Pamintuan’s 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 one’s 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. Pamintuan’s act may have been probably brought only though his

anger against the church by going against the RH Bill but Pamintuan’s 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.

Pamintuan’s 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 Pamintuan’s 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 don’t 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 one’s 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 doesn’t

suffice the proof needed in criminal prosecution to arrive at a conviction. There is a doubt.

3There 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 Pamintuan’s 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.

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