ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46000   May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES<br /><br />068 Phil 203

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46000. May 25, 1939.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. JOSE M. BAES, Appellant.

    Crispin Oben for Appellant.

    Guillermo B. Guevara for Defendants-Appellees.

    No appearance for Plaintiff-Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; CRIMES AGAINST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP; ARTICLE 133 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. — The facts alleged in the complaint constitute the offense defined and penalized in article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, and should the fiscal file an information alleging the said facts and a trial be thereafter held at which the said facts should be conclusively established, the court may find the accused guilty of the offense complained of, or that of coercion, or that of trespass under article 281 of the Revised Penal Code, as may be proper, pursuant to section 29 of General Orders, No. 58.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID. — In his motion to dismiss, the fiscal denies that the unlawful act committed by the accused had offended the religious feelings of the Catholics of the municipality in which the act complained of took place. Such ground of the motion is indefensible. As the fiscal was discussing the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint, he cannot deny any of them, but must admit them, although hypothetically, as they are alleged. The motion raises a question of law, not one of fact. In the second place, 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 Catholic and not those of other faithful ones, for it is possible that certain acts may offend the feelings of those who profess a certain religion, while not otherwise offensive to the feelings of those professing another faith.


    D E C I S I O N


    CONCEPCION, J.:


    This appeal was given due course by the Court of First Instance of Laguna by virtue of a writ of mandamus issued by this court in G. R. No. 45780. The facts are the following: In the justice of the peace court of the municipality of Lumban, Province of Laguna, a complaint was filed of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The undersigned Parish Priest of the Roman Catholic Church in the parish and municipality of Lumban, Province of Laguna, upon being duly sworn, charges Enrique Villaroca, Alejandro Lacbay and Bernardo del Rosario with all offense against religion committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on April 14, 1937, at about 9 o’clock a. m., in this municipality of Lumban, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the aforesaid accused, while holding the funeral of one who in life was called Antonio Macabigtas, in accordance with the rites of religious sect known as the ’Church of Christ’, wilfully, unlawfully, and criminally caused the funeral to pass, as it in fact passed, through the churchyard fronting the Roman Catholic Church, which churchyard belongs to the said Church and is devoted to the religious worship thereof, against the opposition of the undersigned complainant who, through force and threats of physical violence by the accused, was compelled to allow the funeral to pass through the said churchyard. An act committed in grave profanation of the place, in open disregard of the religious feelings of the Catholics of this municipality, and in violation of article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.

    (Sgd.) "JOSE M. A. . BAES

    "Parish Priest

    "Complainant"

    (Here follow the affidavit and the list of witnesses.)

    The accused pleaded not guilty and waived the preliminary investigation. Before the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Laguna, the complainant filed a sworn statement regarding other points so that the provincial fiscal may have full knowledge of the facts and of the witnesses who could testify thereon. Upon the remand of the case to the court, the fiscal, instead of filing the corresponding information, put in the following motion for dismissal:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The complainant is the parish priest of the Roman Catholic Church of Lumban, Laguna. The said priest charges the accused with having caused, through force, intimidation and threats, the funeral of one belonging to the Church of Christ to pass through the churchyard of the Church. Apparently, the offense consists in that the corpse was that of one who belonged to the Church of Christ.

    "The undersigned is of the opinion that the act imputed to the accused does not constitute the offense complained of considering the spirit of article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. At most they might be chargeable with having threatened the parish priest, or with having passed through a private property without the consent of the owner. Justice Albert, commenting on the article, has this to say: 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; works or scoffs at anything devoted to religious ceremonies; plays with or damages or destroys any object of veneration by the faithful. The mere act of causing the passage through the churchyard belonging to the Church, of the funeral of one who in life belonged to the Church of Christ, neither offends nor ridicules the religious feelings of those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Sustaining the foregoing motion, the court by an order of August 31, 1937, dismissed the case, reserving, however, to the fiscal the right to file another information for the crime found to have been committed by the accused.

    From this order, the plaintiff appealed, which appeal was denied but thereafter given due course by the court by virtue of an order of this court.

    The appealed order is based upon the motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal. This officer questions the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint, but omits an essential part thereof, to wit, that the churchyard belongs to the church and is devoted to the religious services of said church, and it is through this churchyard that the accused, over the objection of the parish priest and through force and intimidation, caused to pass the funeral of one under the rites of the religious sect known as the Church of Christ. Had the fiscal not omitted this essential part, he would not have come to the conclusion that the acts complained of do not constitute the crime defined and penalized by article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.

    Moreover, the fiscal, in his aforesaid motion, denies that the unlawful act committed by the accused had offended the religious feelings of the Catholics of the municipality in which the act complained of took place. We believe that such ground of the motion is indefensible. As the fiscal was discussing the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint, he cannot deny any of them, but must admit them, although hypothetically, as they are alleged. The motion raises a question of law, not one of fact. In the second place, 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 profess a certain religion, while not otherwise offensive to the feelings of those professing another faith. We, therefore, take the view that the facts alleged in the complaint constitute the offense defined and penalized in article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, and should the fiscal file an information alleging the said facts and a trial be thereafter held at which the said facts should be conclusively established, the court may find the accused guilty of the offense complained of, or that of coercion, or that of trespass under article 281 of the Revised Penal Code, as may be proper, pursuant to section 29 of General Orders, No. 58.

    The appealed order is reversed and the fiscal is ordered to comply with his duty under the law, without pronouncement as to the costs. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    MORAN, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I concur in the dispositive part on the ground that the lower court, without determining if the churchyard of the Catholic Church is a place devoted to religious worship or not, held that the passage through the said churchyard of a funeral conducted in accordance with the rites of another religion is not offensive to the feelings of the Catholics. If that funeral with ceremonies of another religion had been made to pass inside the church, it would without question be offensive to the feelings of the Catholics. The lower court, through the provincial fiscal, is thus under a duty to determine: (1) If the churchyard is a place devoted to the religious worship of the Catholic Church, and (2) if the funeral held under the rites of another religion was made to pass through the said churchyard.

    If the churchyard of the Catholic Church is like some of those seen in Manila churches where anyone can pass and where goods are even sold to the public, then it is not a place devoted to religious worship, and the fact that a funeral conducted under the rites of a different religion was made to pass through it, does not constitute a violation of article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, but, at most, the offense of threats if it is true that the parish priest was threatened when he prohibited the passage of the funeral.

    LAUREL, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I dissent.

    It is an accepted doctrine of construction that criminal statutes must be strictly interpreted. In fact, no person should be brought within the terms of the penal law who is not clearly so within, and no acts should be pronounced criminal unless so defined and penalized by law. The offense imputed to the defendants herein is defined in article 133 which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ART. 133. Offending religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, In a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful."cralaw virtua1aw library

    As defined, two essential elements must be present under this article, to wit: (1) That the acts complained of were performed in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony; and (2) that the said act or acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. It is admitted that the whole incident happened in the "atrio" or "patio" of the Catholic church of Lumban, Laguna. There was no celebration of any religious ceremony then. The "atrio" coming from the Latin "atrium" means, an open space, generally closed, fronting a building or a church. In this case it is a churchyard. While occasional religious ceremonies may be performed in the "atrio", nevertheless this does not make the "atrio" a place devoted to religious worship under article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, any more than a public plaza, a street or any other place occasionally used for religious purposes. But assuming that the churchyard in this case is "a place devoted to religious worship" — contrary to what we see and know (Justice Brown, in Hunter v. New York O. & W. Ry. Co., 23 N. E., 9, 10; 116 N. Y., 615) — is the act complained of "notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful" The imputed dereliction consists in that "los acusados arriba nombrados, estando dirigiendo el entierro segun el rito de una secta religiosa llamada Iglesia de Cristo’, del cadaver de uno que en vida se llamaba Antonio Macabigtas, voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente hicieron que dicho entierro pasase, como en efecto paso, por el atrio de la Iglesia Catolica Romana frente a dicha Iglesia, el cual atrio es propiedad de qicha Iglesia y esta dedicado a los cultos religiosos de esta Iglesia, contra la oposicion del infrascrito denunciante a quien los acusados mediante fuerza y amenazas de maltrato obligaron a cederles el paso del entierro por dicho atrio." (Underscoring is mine.) As I see it, the only act which is alleged to have offended the religious "feelings of the faithful" here is that of passing by the defendants through the "atrio" of the church under the circumstances mentioned. I make no reference to the alleged trespass committed by the defendants or the threats imputed to them because these acts constitute different offenses (arts. 280, 281 and 282-285) and do not fall within the purview of article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. 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 (Viada, Comentarios al Codigo Penal, 707, 708; vide also Pacheco, Codigo Penal, p. 359) .

    Why, may I ask, should the mere act of passing of the corpse or funeral cortege in or through a private property be characterized as notoriously offensive to the feelings of any religion or of its adherents or followers?

    "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." (Job. I. 21.)

    In this case, the Lord has recalled the life of one of His creatures: and it must be His wish that the remains shall have the right of way that they may be buried "somewhere, in desolate, windswept space, in twilight land, in no man’s land but in everybody’s land."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Rather than too many religions that will make us hate one another because of religious prejudices and intolerance, may T express the hope that we may grasp and imbibe the one fundamental of all religions that should make us love one another!

    I must decline to accept the statement made in the majority opinion that "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 profess a certain religion, while no otherwise offensive to the feelings of those professing another faith." (Underscoring is mine.) I express the opinion that offense to religious feelings should not be made to depend upon the more or less broad or narrow conception of any given particular religion, but should be gauged having in view the nature of the acts committed and after scrutiny of all the facts and circumstances which should be viewed through the mirror of an unbiased judicial criterion. Otherwise, the gravity or leniency of the offense would hinge on the subjective characterization of the act from the point of view of a given religious denomination or sect, and in such a case, the application of the law would be partial and arbitrary, withal, dangerous, especially in a country said to be "once the scene of religious intolerance and persecution." (Aglipay v. Ruiz, 35 Off. Gaz., 2164.)

    I think that the ruling of the lower court in ordering the dismissal of the case and in reserving to the provincial fiscal the presentation of another complaint or complaints under other provisions of the Revised Penal Code, is correct and should be upheld.

    IMPERIAL, J.:


    I concur in the preceding dissenting opinion of Justice Laurel.

    G.R. No. 46000   May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES<br /><br />068 Phil 203


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED