Centeno v.

Villalon-Pornillos

G.R. No. 113092 September 1, 1994

KTA: Solicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the
State in the exercise of police power. The State has authority under the exercise
of its police power to determine whether or not there shall be restrictions on
soliciting by unscrupulous persons or for unworthy causes or for fraudulent
purposes. Certainly the solicitation of contributions in good faith for worthy
purposes should not be denied, but somewhere should be lodged the power to
determine within reasonable limits the worthy from the unworthy.

Facts:
This petition is an appeal on the decision of the Trial Court convicting Centeno
and Yco for violating P.D. 1564 known as the Solicitation Permit Law when they
both solicited money for the renovation of their chapel without a permit from the
DSWD.

In 1985, the petitioners, officers of Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay,

launched a fund drive for the renovation of their chapel in Bulacan.

The petitioners approached and solicited from Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, a

resident of Tikay, a contribution of P1,500.00. The solicitation was made without
a permit from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Hon.
Angeles filed a complaint against the petitioners for violation of P.D. 1564 known
as the Soliciation Permit Law.

P.D. 1564 provides as follows:

Sec. 2. Any person, corporation, organization, or association desiring to solicit or

receive contributions for charitable or public welfare purposes shall first secure a
permit from the Regional Offices of the Department of Social Services and
Development as provided in the Integrated Reorganization Plan.

In 1992, the trial court found the petitioners guilty of violating the Solicitation
Permit Law.

In this instant case, the petitioners assert among others that the term “religious
purpose” is not expressly included in the provisions of the statute, hence what
the law does not include, it excludes.

Issue: Whether or not the phrase “charitable purposes” should be construed in

the broadest sense so as to include a religious purpose.

Held/Ratio:

The 1987 Constitution and other statutes treat the words “charitable” and
“religious” separately and independently of each other.

In P.D. 1564, it merely stated “charitable or public welfare purposes” which

means that it was not the intention of the framers of the law to include
solicitations for religious purposes. The world “religious purpose” is not
interchangeable with the expression “charitable purpose”.

The acts of the petitioners cannot be punished under the said law because the
law does not contemplate solicitation for religious purposes.

The solicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the
State in the exercise of police power. However, in the case at bar, considering
that solicitations intended for a religious purpose are not within the coverage of
Presidential Decree No. 1564, as earlier demonstrated, petitioner cannot be held
criminally liable therefor.

The decision appealed from is reversed and set aside, and petitioner Martin
Centeno is acquitted of the offense charged.