2010016516

Atty. Dellosa
Legal Technique and Logic
Biases and Assumptions
The case of Carlos Celdran puts into light various biases concerning the judgement of the
courts on the case involving the Church where Carlos Celdran allegedly insulting the religious
feelings of the church and the faithful. Celdran allegedly violated article 133 of the revised penal
code which punishes anyone who in a place of religious worship, or during the celebration of any
religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. 1 The
penal law is pursuant to the Constitutional right of any person to believe on whatever faith they
wish2.
Testimonies were given both on the side of the prosecution and of the defense, the
prosecution presented testimonies from Teresita Azurin, Marcelina, and Angelito Cacal, and
from Oscar Alunday, the executive secretary of the episcopal commission for biblical apostolate
of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. All of the testimonies of these people
were given full faith and credit by the MeTC and the RTC for the testimonies according to the
court were delivered in a spontaneous, natural, and straightforward manner, and that the truth of
said testimonies conform to common knowledge, observation and the experience of mankind. 3 It
shows that the court seems too quick to assume that the opinion of these people would be enough
to show that religious feelings were indeed offended, given the fact that a majority if not all of
the people presented by the side of the people were rather much to inclined towards the church
that the average faithful which is the majority of the catholic population of the Philippines or in
this case population of faithful within the Manila Cathedral which more appropriate in this
matter.
Teresita Azurin who is a devout catholic, and also a former theology teacher/facilitator in
retreats biblio-drama all over Asia for more than 10 years who stated that she was initially
nervous as she witnessed the event caused by Celdran and soon she was offended and indignant
that Celdran’s actions disrupted and disrespected the “solemn” celebration, she also found the
use of “DAMASO” was offensive for she thought that it pertained to all the clergy present 4.
Azurin being a former Theology teacher along with her close proximity towards the Catholic
faith it would be common knowledge to assume that she would be hypersensitive towards any
negative notion or action towards the Faith or any of its members. As such with her
hypersensitivity towards any criticism for the Faith her testimony has a high chance to lean
towards the church being insulted, offended even if the Church members are only being
criticized.
The courts it seems did not put much thought towards Azurin’s zealousness, and or her
possible bias towards the church, but rather viewed her testimony based on its deliverance. Her

1
REV. PEN CODE. art. 133
2
CONST., art. III, sec 5.
3
Carlos Celdran y Pamintuan V. People of the Philippines, CA-G.R. CR No.36170, December 12 2014
4
Ibid.
hypersensitivity towards the faith may be viewed as a double edged sword with which she may
be able to determine insults easily due to her vast knowledge of the faith but the negative side is
that she may also mistake criticisms as insults as easily, and with that take criticisms against a
single person or group within the church as an insult towards that entirety of the faith itself, as
with part of her statement mentioning that she understood the act to presume all the clergy
present to have done amiss.
Marcelina Cacal, who like Azurin is closely tied with the church being an employee of
the CBCP for 12 years, gave a testimony which includes her saying that “She feels trauma
whenever she hears the word (Damaso)”5. Such a reaction may be found to be far from what is
common for such an event or rather unfit for the actions of Celdran. for when a person who
suddenly walks up to the center of the church holding a sign stating “Damaso” a person who
understands the context would be curious, perplexed or confused as to why such a person is
doing so.
Without the aura of violence or actions that may suggest that Celdran may want to harm
any person within the church such a reaction where the person feels trauma is quite unlikely.
From what may be surmised from her testimony it may well likely be due to her making
Celdran’s actions to be more of an insult rather than a protest of a citizen of the Philippines. Such
protest done when the higher ups of the church, shall we call it, may hear or be made aware of
the feelings of a mere citizen concerning the actions of the church when it comes to political
matters which to the eyes of Celdran is inversely affecting his along with all the other citizens of
the country.
For the court to accept such a testimony without considering the chance that a person so
close to the church may exaggerate as to what he or she has experienced, such a bias makes the
law concerning the protection of religious feelings similar to an aegis that defends such feelings
from all things even from the criticism of the people that gave the government its power, such a
bias would take all criticism and or protest that is meant to express an opinion or to express
redress from the actions of a certain group, here it is the priests participating in politics, which in
the view, feeling, and or experience of these people is adversely affecting their lives.
As for the testimonies for the defense the testimony of Ms. Ria Regina S. Limajap where
she briefly describes the feelings of Celdran concerning the political implications of what the
Clergy are doing and its effect on the people and the country in general, describing mothers who
are not able to care for themselves along with their children6. She describes that when Celdran
acted a mass was not apparent, and that the movements of Celdran were not scandalous 7. She
established that Celdran is a person of the arts who is unhappy with the actions of the Church-
men concerning the reproductive health bill issue, who in turn took it upon himself to express his
redress in a protest where all the higher ups of the church may be made aware that their actions
are negatively affecting the lives of the people, and all this done where a mass is not apparent.
Atty. Monsod who also attended the occasion gave a testimony where he briefly
describes what happened as he saw it and made it clear that “the incident did not unfold during

5
Carlos Celdran y Pamintuan V. People of the Philippines, CA-G.R. CR No.36170, December 12 2014
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid
the celebration of the holy mass” and that he did not consider Celdran’s actions to be offensive8.
For the court to not consider the testimonies of these two people to create an impression that
what happened is just a case of unjust vexation or in the least to have created a doubt somewhat
brings to mind that the court is somehow biased in this case for if the court considers the
possibility of bias for the all the people who presented those presented for the side of the people
of the Philippines have a higher possibility for such for they are directly connected with the
church for both Cacal are working for the CBCP while Azurin is a theology teacher and a
facilitator for retreats all over Asia, and the last testimony which is given by a priest also present
in the occasion who was only a few meters from where the act was done but the court seemed to
assume such affinity for the church as a positive point in determining an offense against religious
feelings which is somewhat biased.
Whereas from the people presented for the side of Celdran only Ms. Limajap may be
vulnerable to bias for she seems to be a close friend of Celdran. While Atty. Monsod has nothing
to gain from being biased concerning Celdran and as such his testimony should be the least
suspicious, but the courts were not swayed or given a sense of doubt if religious feelings were
really offended in this case from what the testimonies of the defense have given which should
really affect their ruling of “Guilty beyond reasonable doubt” for is it not a reasonable doubt that
some people did not find it offensive and the testimonies taken for the side of the Church are
from people closely tiedto the Church?
According to Atty. Boado “if the act is directed to the religious belief itself and the act is
notoriously offensive, the crime is offending religious feelings. Otherwise, it is only unjust
vexation.”9 As such with how all the witnesses described the event that occurred it seemingly is
apparent that Celdran is criticizing the actions of the Priests rather than the faith itself for the
word “Damaso” is implying on the actions of the priest in Rizal’s novels as such he is directing
towards the actions of the priests of today rather than a direct attack on the faith/belief itself, this
point may also be shown with the testimony of Azurin where she states that “she was offended
for the word DAMASO she considered to refer to all the Clergy men present”. though a thin line
may be present between the differences of unjust vexation and offending religious feelings in this
case doubt is still present and as such the bias and assumption of the court towards the
testimonies of the people against Celdran have led it to pronounce Celdran “Guilty beyond
reasonable doubt” along with the Court of appeals affirming the decision of the RTC.
For the testimonies for the side of Celdran to not be of any benefit for his defense is
rather perplexing for it certainly creates a doubt and it somehow shows that there was not a mass
when Celdran executed his actions and it also shows that he has a background concerning
performance art and activism of some sort, all this if we are to believe their testimonies, and for
both persons to not be offended by his actions and not being given merit is somewhat confusing
as to believe the testimonies of the people for the side against Celdran to which some of their
reactions towards the event that occurred defies common logic to some degree for a reaction like
that of Marcelina Cacal to “Feel trauma whenever she hears the word DAMASO”. Whereas the
reactions of Angelito Cacal and that of Azurin points in the direction of unjust vexation rather
than an offence against religious feelings as was previously described by Atty. Boado.

8
Ibid.
9
LEONOR D. BOADO, NOTES AND CASES ON THE REVISED PENAL CODE, 416, 2012 EDITION.
 Concerning the testimony of the priest in the name of Oscar Alunday wherein he felt
offended and insulted for a holy and liturgical worship inside a basilica rich with religious
history was intruded, this somewhat also proves that what happened was just unjust vexation
rather than offending religious feelings for it clearly shows that who were directed upon by the
acts of Celdran are the Human priests themselves and their actions that dealt with politics rather
than the faith/belief itself. For the court to accept such testimonies as proof that the crime of
offending religious feelings is apparent then the religious may just use such plea to defend
themselves from all criticisms and protests which as mentioned before is like a miraculous aegis
which defends one from all harm.
The effect of the biases and assumptions of the courts concerning the case of Celdran
made it seemingly apparent that there are still things that may be exploited within the confines of
the courts that should be neutral in nature, to some human degree. Such biases and assumptions
led the court to decide with a verdict of “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”. In my humble opinion
and view a doubt is present in said case where evidence seemingly points to the direction of
unjust vexation rather than the crime of offending religious feelings. Without considering that the
people who are for the side of the church may consider vexation as an insult, possibly biased,
and thus exaggerate their testimonies or rather are zealous enough for them to perceive such acts
to be acts that offend their faith and thus give a convincing enough testimony to make the courts
believe their testimonies for being spontaneous and natural. This may possibly make the law as
aforementioned a law that protects the church from all things even those that they should be
vulnerable to such as criticisms, as to all the people are.