CASE DIGEST

Law 110 – Crim II

Celdran v. People (Offending Religious Feelings)
Court SC 1st Division
Citation G.R. No. 220127
Date 21 March 2018
Petitioner Carlos Celdran
Respondents People of the Philippines
Ponente
Relevant topicMeaning of the elements of RPC 133. Offending Religious Feelings –
 “Notoriously offensive” means those acts which cause someone to fell
resentful, upset, or annoyed and the acts are judged from the point of
view of the complainant NOT the offender.
 “Feelings of the faithful” meant to refer to the religious feelings of those
inside the place devoted to religious worship or those engaged in
religious worship at the time of the commission of the act.
Prepared by Gelo
FACTS:
 During the celebration of the second anniversary of the May They Be One Campaign (MTBC) and
the launching of the 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
such as members of the military, police, media, non-catholics, students, representatives of various
religious organizations gathered around the Manila Cathedral in the afte1noon of September 30,
2010. The event was comprised of three (3) inseperable 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 last part was the handwritten unity bible.
 While Brother Edgar J. Tria Tirona was reading a passage from the Bible around 3:00 p.m.,
petitioner entered the Manila Cathedral clad in a black suit and a hat. Petitioner went to the center
of the aisle, in front of the altar and suddenly brought out a placard emblazoned with the word
"DAMASO." Commotion ensued when petitioner started shouting while inside the church saying
"Bishops, stop involving yourself (sic) in politics," disrupting and showing disrespect to an otherwise
solemn celebration.
 The defense, on the other hand, alleged that the incident did not happen during the celebration of
the holy mass and nothing happened that disturbed the proceedings.
 The MeTC in its Decision dated December 14, 2012, found petitioner guilty of the crime Offending
Religious Feelings.
 RTC affirmed the MeTC.
 CA affirmed both MeTC and RTC.

ISSUE– HELD – RATIO: (Related to the Topic)

ISSUE HELD
WON Celdran is guilty of Offending Religious Feelings YES

 The elements of Offending the Religious Feelings are:

o That the acts complained of were performed in a place devoted to religious worship, or
during the celebration of any religious ceremony
o 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.
 First element was present because it was committed by the petitioner while there was a religious
ceremony insider the Manila Cathedral (which is a place of workshop). The celebrations during that
day were: the May They Be One Bible Campaign Anniversary and the feast day of Saint Gerome.
 “Acts” as used in RPC 133 may come in the form of words, overt behavior, deeds, or anything
knowingly performed by a person – symbolic or otherwise. The petitioner is said to have dressed in
black suit and hat, walked through the middle aisle in the front of the Manila Cathedral altar and
displayed a placard with the word “DAMASO” and blurted out “Don’t meddle in politics” while being
dragged outside.

Page 1 of 2
CASE DIGEST
Law 110 – Crim II
Celdran v. People (Offending Religious Feelings)
 “Notoriously offensive” means those acts which cause someone to fell resentful, upset, or annoyed
and the acts are judged from the point of view of the complainant NOT the offender.
 “Feelings of the faithful” meant to refer to the religious feelings of those inside the place devoted to
religious worship or those engaged in religious worship at the time of the commission of the act.

ISSUE HELD
WON RPC 133 is Unconstitutional NO

 As ruled by the CA, the attempts of Celdran to question the constitutionality cannot be condoned.
The Court presumes the law works with regularity, and thus assumes that RPC 133 is valid and
constitutional. There should be grave care and consideration caution in confronting the
constitutionality of a salute.

RULING:
CA Decision affirmed.

NOTE:
In the appeal to the SC, Celdran raised a question of fact which cannot be brought on appeal to the SC
under Rule 45 for certiorari that only allows questions of law to be raised.

The question of whether petitioner offended the religious feelings of those who were present during the
celebration of the MTBC is a question of fact which will not be entertained in the present petition.

Page 2 of 2