TOPIC: Crimes against the Fundamental Laws of the State Offending Religious

Feelings
People v. Nanoy
69 OG 8043

A member of the congregation, Romeo Zafra then held him and led him
outside the church (and he did not resist). The other members of the sect
also ran out of the church, causing the religious service to be discontinued.

Nanoy was then charged with a violation of Art. 133 of the RPC (offending
the religious feelings) but was later found guilty of disturbance or interruption
of a religious ceremony penalized under Art. 1533 of the RPC (tumults and
other disturbances of public order). He was sentenced to 10 months and 21
days of imprisonment and a fine of P50. The accused argues that he should
only be guilty of unjust vexation penalized under Art. 287.

Date of Promulgation: February 24, 1972

Ponente: Fernandez, J.
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Epifanio Nanoy
Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of Bohol
Digest By: ECPPotian
Doctrine: An essential element to the crime of offending religious feelings
under Art. 1331 is to perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful.
Brief: Nanoy, in an allegedly drunken state, entered the chapel of the Assembly
of God while a service was ongoing. With uplifted hands, he attempted to grab
the song leader, and was escorted out of the chapel. The SC held that it was
not a crime of offending religious feelings, and Nanoy was guilty of unjust
vexation under Art. 287 par. 22 of the RPC.
Facts:

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Issue: WON the accused was guilty of violating Art. 133 of the RPC (offending
religious feelings)
Held: NO
Ratio: The SC held that the accused is not guilty under Art .133 because he did not
perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful, which is an element
of the crime of offending religious feelings. His acts were not directed to the religious
belief itself.

On April 27, 1969 at 4:00 in the afternoon, the congregation of the Assembly
of God was having its afternoon services in their chapel when Nanoy, who
was allegedly in a drunken state, entered the said chapel with uplifted hands
then attempted to grab the song leader Levita Lapura, who ran away from
him.

1 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.

Likewise, he is not guilty under 153 since he did not cause such a serious
disturbance as to interrupt or disturb the services. All he did was enter the
chapel with uplifted arms and attempted to grab the song leader.
Furthermore, the Court also held that he had no intention of interrupting the
services for he allowed himself to be escorted out by Zafra without
resistance.
Nanoy is guilty of unjust vexation penalized under par. 2 of Art 287. 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.

Dispositive:
Judgment MODIFIED to P100 fine w/ subsidiary imprisonment. Nanoy was acquitted
of all the charges against him and is found to be guilty of unjust vexation.

3 Art. 153. Tumults and other disturbance of public orders; Tumultuous disturbance or

2 Art. 287. Light coercions. Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything
belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the
thing, but in no case less than 75 pesos.
Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine
ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.

interruption liable to cause disturbance. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period
to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who shall cause any serious disturbance in a public place, office, or
establishment, or shall interrupt or disturb public performances, functions or gatherings, or
peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in the provisions of Articles 131 and 132. The
penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon persons causing any disturbance or
interruption of a tumultuous character. The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to be
tumultuous if caused by more than three persons who are armed or provided with means of
violence.