UNCIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: When pretense becomes offense

By Obiter07

A protester waltzes in while a mass is ongoing, shouts at some bishops and displays a placard.[1] His act of defiance had a thespian air as he was even in period costume.  Has a crime been committed?  It would appear so, at least as far as the statute books go.  Art. 133 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

“ARTICLE 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in 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.”

But it does contain a subjective test that some defense lawyers may have a field day over, that the acts must be “notoriously offensive” to the “feelings of the faithful.”

Based on jurisprudence, the acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule, as mocking or scoffing at or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II (1981), p. 75. Please see also People vs. Tecson as cited in Padilla, Criminal Law, Book II (1976), p. 171). Would asking priests to stay out of politics and reproductive measures qualify? Or is calling priests “Damaso” the hypocrite friar in one of the national hero’s books fall within what is prohibited by law?

Believe it or not, but there are actual cases on this provision of law as when the following was found to be notoriously offensive and criminal: (1) when a rock was thrown at a minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo while he was preaching and (2) when remarks were made that Christ was called the Anti-Christ,  that  the Church marked by a demon and that the Pope is the Commander of Satan (Ibid., citing  People vs. Migallos, CA-G.R.NO. 13619-R, Aug.5, 1955 and People vs. Mandorio).  However, it was found that there is no such offense in an instance where a Protestant maligned the Pope as a Catholic procession was passing through near the house where they were having a meeting (Ibid., citing People v. Gesulga, pp. 75-76). And entering an assembly of a congregation which was having chapel services while drunk and attempting to grab the song leader is only unjust vexation (Ibid. citing People vs. Nanoy). 

It should be noted, however, that the offense is judged from the point of view of the complainant, and not that of the offender.  As held by the Court in one case, “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.” PEOPLE vs. BAES, [G.R. No. 46000.  May 25, 1939.]

This boils down to the ageless debate on whether freedom of expression trumps the rights of other people to have peaceful meetings, even religious ones.   Does freedom of expression occupy a higher rung over that of worshippers exercising their freedom of religion?

There are worse crimes than holding up placards at a mass.  But there is a degree of polite discourse we may all wish to maintain where we can disagree without being disagreeable, when dialogue should be paramount over threats of excommunication and where faith must meet with what the people need to contend with every day. The tour guide may have had a valid message to convey, but there are venues and appropriate times for such protests.  Should it be done during a time of prayer, when we have so much to pray for now? The courts will say whether he should be criminally liable.  But in terms of civility, he is clearly guilty of lacking it.

---

[1] http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20101001-295403/Lawyers-post-bail-for-jailed-tour-guide

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

TRUE CONFESSIONS: Confessions in Criminal Law

By Obiter 07

A senator flees the murder conspiracy charges against him.  A mother advances her own fantastic theory to place the blame on someone else in the face of mounting evidence against her road rage murderer suspect of a son.    We cannot judge who is innocent or guilty. But this is one thing we can all agree on, we cannot expect suspects or their loved ones to just throw in the towel and confess.  Telling the truth appears to be as rare as a Manny-Villar-Las-Piñas-subdivision-not-within-the-vicinity-of-the-C-5-extension.  And alibis are as plentiful as there are resources available to the accused.  

Confessing to a crime does mean facing the penalties.  But there reasons to do it apart from serving as a salve to one’s conscience.

Why confess

Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code provides that confession is a mitigating circumstance:

“ARTICLE 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances:

xxx

7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. xxx” [Underscoring supplied]

Mitigating circumstances can serve to lower the penalty to be imposed on the accused. For example, Article 63 provides:

 

“ARTICLE 63. xxx  In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:

xxx

3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.”

When to confess

But one must confess at the earliest opportunity before the prosecution starts to present its evidence.

“Article 13 (7) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilty if "he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution." The following requisites must concur: (1) the accused spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before a competent court trying the case; and (3) the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution. [emphasis supplied]

“In this case, appellant made his confession of guilt before the presentation of evidence by the prosecution since he pleaded guilty during the arraignment. The appellant also confessed voluntarily and spontaneously despite knowing the serious nature of the charge against him. Lastly, appellant made his confession openly, that is, before the judge and the parties in a hearing. Clearly therefore, all the requisites of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession were present.”  PEOPLE vs. JUAN [G.R. No. 152289.  January 14, 2004.]

A change of plea from guilty to not guilty is unavailing if made too late.  One must tell the truth at the right time.

“[T]he trial court was correct in not crediting in favor of WILLIAM the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, since the change of his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty" was made only after the presentation of some evidence for the prosecution. PEOPLE vs. MONTINOLA  [G.R. Nos. 131856-57.  July 9, 2001.]”

Confessions are given credit since it is “an act of repentance and respect for the law; it indicates a moral disposition in the accused favorable to his reform, [Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book I (1981), p. 307 citing People v. De La Cruz, 63 Phil. 874.]”

Prior guilty plea

The law seeks to protect the accused even in cases where he is facing a capital offense. Even his prior guilty plea may be withdrawn.

“Sec. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. – When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf.

Sec. 5. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty.– At any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty. [Rule 115]” [emphasis supplied]

Since kindergarten, we’ve learned a lot of rules, not to hurt anybody, to give back what isn’t ours and to not tell a lie, to name a few.  We’re no longer in kindergarten but the same rules apply.  Of course now we can add: if you commit a crime then do your time and if you don’t like admitting then stop committing.  

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Careless Whispers (Secrets, Intrigues and Confidentiality)

By Obiter07

They say gossip travels fast but it may just bring you to jail. You may not know it but sharing secrets is a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code if you are a manager, employee or servant.

“ARTICLE 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. — The penalty of arresto mayor[1] and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.”

One wonders why only managers and employees are covered. Does that mean higher ranking officers are exempt from penalty when they should be the ones in a position to know and reveal more? Household help should also be forewarned that their employer’s private lives have to remain private, details of which may not travel beyond the clotheslines and walls of the house.

Naturally, revealing industrial secrets carries a higher penalty. Though the fine is not at all high.

“ARTICLE 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. — The penalty of prision correccional[2] in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge, employee or workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.”

However, the violation of intellectual property rights is a totally different matter and obviously subject to severe punishment.

For the benefit of Piolo and Sam, “intriga” is actually a crime too. Unfortunately, though, Lolit can just forego a short cab ride to cough up the fine -

“ARTICLE 364. Intriguing against honor. — The penalty of arresto menor[3] or fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed for any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of a person.”

To add some bite and attempt to make up for the measly penal punishment, damages may be claimed for violations of privacy, and intriguing as well, under the New Civil Code:

“ARTICLE 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.”

The following general principles under the Civil Code may also be used:

“Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

Of course, when you spread something that tends to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead, then the provisions on libel apply[4] And we need a whole new post to tackle that topic.

With the wider and faster variety of present-day communication tools, the penalties prescribed barely offset the damages done to the victims who may find themselves ready subjects of careless and harmful text messages, Photoshop-ed pictures or videos over the internet, or easy tabloid fodder. We hope the laws can be amended as soon as possible to reflect modern times.

[1] The duration of arresto mayor shall be from 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.(Art. 27, Revised Penal Code).

[2] The duration of prision correccional shall be from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years. (ibid)

[3] The duration of arresto menor shall be from 1 day 30 days. (ibid)

[4] Art. 353, ibid.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST