Crimes against the fundamental laws of the state;

Oogle.comT
Crimes against religious worship;
opic
Offending the religious feelings
Case No. G.R. No. 1211-R [51 OG 4619] (September 1955)
People of the Philippines, appellee
Case Name vs.
Jose Mandoriao, Jr., defendant-appellant
Ponente DE LEON, J.;

RELEVANT FACTS

On 1953 March 31, IGLESIA NI CRISTO (INC) held a religious rally at a public place in Baguio. About 200 people
attended the meeting, about 50 of whom were members of the INC, while the rest were outsiders and curious
listeners.

Mr. Plutarco SALVIO, a minister of INC, was expounding on his topic to the effect that Jesus Christ is not God, but
only man, when the crowd became unruly. Some people (including appellant’s father, Jose Mandoriao, Sr., and co-
defendant Alipio RIVERA) urged Jose MANDORIAO, Jr. (a minister of the Association of Baptist Churches) to go up
the stage and have a debate with SALVIO. MANDORIAO, however, was not able to speak before the microphone
because the wire connecting it was abruptly disconnected.

- PLUTARCO alleged that MANDORIAO grabbed the mike from the preacher (denied by defendant) and
RIVERA threatened to shoot the preacher, such acts being notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
devotees therein

 RTC: RIVERA was acquitted, while MANDORIAO was found guilty

ISSUE/s

 W/N the INC gathering was a religious ceremony as contemplated in RPC Art. 133
 W/N the defendant performed “acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful”
 W/N the defendant violated Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code
 W/N the defendant may be held criminally liable under RPC Art. 153 for public disturbance

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N the INC gathering NO.
was a “religious
ceremony” as Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. —The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
contemplated in RPC period to prision correctional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone
Art. 133 who, in a place devoted to religious warship or during the celebration of any religious
ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

The application of the INC to hold a meeting and the permit expressly state that the purpose was
to hold a religious rally.

A religious meeting has been “an assemblage of people met for the purpose of performing acts of
adoration to the Supreme Being, or to perform religious services in recognition of God as an object
of worship, love and obedience, it matters not the faith with respect to the Deity entertained by the
persons so assembled.”

State witness Ambrosio DALUDADO, who secured the permit for the meeting, and was surmised
to be a ranking member of INC, testified that the meeting was held to acquire new members of
his church.
 By admission of the prosecution witnesses themselves, it would show that the supposed prayers and singing
of hymns were merely incidental, and the principal object was to persuade new converts to their religious
belief and creed. This seems to be the most logical explanation, considering that INC had 2 chapels within
Baguio City where the congregation could’ve celebrated its religious rituals solemnly.

Mere saying of prayers and the singing of hymn in an open space do not render such place as
one devoted to religious worship nor make such an occasion a religious ceremony within the
purview of RPC Art. 133.

“...such a case where disagreements are bound to cop up and passions to run high among those in the
audience who hold views contrary to those who might compose the negligible few, is not within the
constitutional guaranty of freedom of religion which inspired our legislators to make the offense defined
under Arts. 132 and 133 of the RPC.”

W/N the defendant NO.

performed “acts
notoriously offensive RTC judge said there was no clear evidence that MANDORIAO pronounced any insulting word.
to the feelings of the
faithful” Even the information filed by the City Attorney does not charge the appellant with having
uttered any offensive word, only accusing him of disturbing the meeting... which actions were
alleged to be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the devotees therein.

Justice Albert: “An act is said to be notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful when a
person ridicules or makes light of anything constituting a religious dogma; mocks or scoffs at anything
related to religious ceremonies; plays with or damages or destroys any object of veneration by the faithful”
(People v. Baes)

Justice Laurel: “I believe that an act, in order to be considered as notoriously offensive to the religious
feelings, must be one directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule; the
offender, for instance, mocks, scoffs at or attempts to damage an object of religious veneration; it must be
abusive, insulting and obnoxious.” (dissenting opinion, People v. Baes)

There was no object of veneration at the meeting. The mere fact that Mandoriao ascended the
stage, challenged Salvio to a debate, and allegedly grabbed the microphone do not constitute acts
calculated to ridicule or make light of a religious ritual.
W/N the defendant NO.
violated Article 133 of
the Revised Penal Code Acts do not constitute the elements of the crime, as discussed above.
W/N the defendant may NO.
be held criminally liable
under RPC Art. 153 for Antonio DULAY declared there was already a commotion before MANDORIAO went up the stage.
public disturbance Evidence of record does not show the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt under this provision
of the Code.

RULING

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the appellant, Jose Mandoriao, Jr., acquitted, without
costs. So ordered.