Art. 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.


Elements:

1. Offender is any person;

2. He performs an act in a place devoted to religious worship, or during the celebration of any religious ceremony;

3. Such act is notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful;

4. There’s a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, directed against religious tenet.


Offender

■ This is the only crime against the fundamental laws of the State that may be committed by a private person.


Where must the act notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful be performed?

Accused should have performed the act:

1.  In a place devoted to religious worship or
2.  During the celebration of any religious ceremony 

■ It is not necessary that there is a religious ceremony going on when the act was performed in a place devoted to religious worship. 

■ The religious ceremony may be celebrated outside of a church. Religious ceremonies are those religious acts performed outside of a church, such as processions and special prayers for burying dead persons. (Albert)


When is the act said to be notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful?

■ 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. (People vs. Baes, G.R. No. L-46000, May 25, 1939)

■ 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. (People vs. Baes)

Examples:

■ Example: Stoning a minister while in the act of preaching. 

■ Remarks that those all members of the Roman Catholic Church are marked by the demon and that the Pope is the Commander of Satan.


Deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful

Facts: A Catholic procession passed a Protestant meeting on the middle of the road. While the procession was passing, the Protestant preacher placed a picture of the Pope on the wall of a house and shouted, "Here again are the fools of the devouring beast, the Pope" or words of similar import. Held: In order to render the accused liable for offending the religious feelings, it is indispensable that said utterances were made in a place devoted to religious worship, or in a place where the religious ceremony was being celebrated. Accused in this case, was not in said place but in another place. Also, it was the religious procession that approached the place where he was preaching on matters offensive to the feelings of the faithful Catholics. There is no evidence that accused had purposely deviated from the topic of his preaching or that if the procession had not approached his meeting place, he would not have uttered the words complained of, to evidence his intention deliberately to hurt the feelings of those actually engaged in the celebration of a religious procession or ceremony. (People vs. Gesulga)


Only Unjust Vexation 

The crime is only UNJUST VEXATION when the act is NOT directed to the religious belief itself and there is no intention of causing so serious a disturbance as to interrupt a religious ceremony.

Examples:

● Accused while drunk entered with uplifted hands while the congregation of the Assembly of God was having its service inside its chapel and attempted to grab the song leader. As a result, the members of the sect ran out of the chapel and the service was discontinued. The crime is unjust vexation as accused did not perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. (People vs Nanoy)

● Accused played dance music while a group of Catholics were about to commence praying the rosary, and refused to turn down the amplifier when requested to do so. Crime committed is unjust vexation as the offender merely purposely annoyed the feeling of the religious group for unjustifiable reason, which act cannot be considered notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. (People vs Tamarra)

● While the pabasa was going on the evening of April 10, 1933, between 11 and 12 o'clock, the defendants arrived at the place, carrying bolos and crowbars, and started to construct a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel. The chairman of the committee in charge of the pabasa tried to persuade them to refrain from carrying out their plan, by reminding them of the fact that it was Holy Week and that it was highly improper to construct a fence at that time of the evening. A verbal altercation ensued. When the people attending the pabasa in the chapel and those who were eating in the yard thereof noticed what was happening, they became excited and left the place hurriedly and in such confusion that dishes and saucers were broken and benches toppled over. The pabasa was discontinued. Held: The construction of a fence, even though irritating and vexatious under the circumstances to those present, is not such an act as can be designated as "notoriously offensive to the faithful. Accused was acquitted of the crime of offending the religious feelings but convicted of the crime of unjust vexation under Art. 287. (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-40577, August 23, 1934)