SANTOS ANAL, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

This petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Court of
Appeals raises the question of whether or not petitioners could be convicted of
the crime of unjust vexation^[1]
under an infor­mation charging them with the offense
of offending religious feel­ings, by the performance of “acts notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”^[2]

According to the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be
reviewed, penned by Justice Gatmaitan, the nature of
the case is set forth thus: “[Resolviendo]: En apelacion, Criminal No. 6184 del Juzgado
de la Instancia, de Camarines
Sur contra Agapito Escaro y otros por ofensa a los
sentirnientos religiosos,
en donde, presentada la denuncia el 7 de Octubre, 1958,
en el Juzgado de Paz de Calabanga,
renunciada la investigacion
pre­liminar por la defensa el 15 de Diciembre, elevada la causa al Juzgado a quo alli registrada la querella el 16 de Febrero, 1959, leida la misma, diose la contestacion de ‘no culpable’ de los
procesados el 7 de Septiembre,
1959, y vista en su fondo
en varias fechas empezando el 14 de Septiembre,
1960 y terminando el 10 de Febrero,
1965, se habia promulgado
en su dia, decision que dispuso: ‘In view of all the
foregoing consideration, the Court declares Agapito Escaro, Domingo Largo alias Filipino Largo, Teofilo Cal, Primo Arceo, Bartolome Arceo, Martin Arceo and Santos Andal, guilty of
the crime of offending religious feeling defined and punished under Art. 133 of
the Revised Penal Code as amended, and therefore sentences each and every one
of them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of from two (2) months and four (4)
days of arresto mayor, to one (1) year and eight (8)
days of prision correccional,
and to pay the costs of the proceedings.”^[3]

The petition for review sets forth the statement of facts as
found by the Court of Appeals.  Thus:
“* * * [Resultando]: Que
no hay series cuestion sobre
ciertos antecedentes: En el
barrio de Manguiringi pueblo de Calabanga,
Camarines Sur, existe y existia desde muchisimos años un cementerio catolico; en fecha no bien aclarada en las pruebas, una
tal Catalina Atienza con otros consiguieron la titulacion del terreno a su nombre; por
lo que el cures parroco de Calabanga en representacion de la
Iglesia Catolica entablo demanda de anulacion del titulo, asunto que gano
la Iglesia en La Instancia pero perdio ante este Tribunal, vease el Exhibit
6, en fallo prornulgado el
19 de Octubre, 1964, aunque
no se ha demostrado que ya es sentencia
definitiva, pero no se discute que eso
no obstante, la Iglesia siempre ha estado en posesion del terreno, y estaba en tal posesion
el Septiembre, 1958; puss bien,
el 23 del mismo mes de Septiembre, 1958, murio una vecina del barrio, llamada, Dorotea Bosque, mujer de uno de los acusados, Teofilo
Cal, y ambos esposos pertenecian
a la secta denominada,
Jehovah’s Witnesses; informada la Tesoreria
del pueblo por Filipino Largo, uno
de los acusados tambien partidario de la secta disidente, expidiose por la oficina la partida de defuncion Exhibit 1-C, y en la misma
se hizo constar como lugar del entierro al mencionado cementerio catolico del barrio,
con la nota de, ‘and please enter the [remains] of Dorotea Basque’, (Exhibit 1-C) pero
se ye que la nota viene escrita en letras en nivel algo diferente de la penultima linea del certificado; proveida pues de ese certificado,
la familia de Ia difunta con otros creyentes de la secta interraron el cadaver en el cementerio
cat6oica en la mencionada fecha,
y es ese incidente que dio
margen el proceso de autos;
* * *.”^[4]

The facts as above set forth lack completeness.  The decision of the Court of Appeals
above-quoted likewise contained the following: “2. – [Considerando]:
Que si bien
los apelantes hacen hincapie en la alegada irnperiosa necesidad en que se hallaban per cuanto no habia otro cementerio
en donde depositar los restos mortales
de la Dorotea, exhibiendo
en prueba el Exhibit 2, notese
que esto no demuestra mas que
en Calabanga no hay otro cementerio pero no es prueba concluyente
de que no hubieran podido hacer el entierro en otros lugares cercanas, en el mapa por ejemplo
de la pro­vincia de Camarines
Sur se ve que Calabanga dista
no mas de tres (3) kilometros del municipio adyacente de Bombon, ademas no talmente exige Ia ley
de que se hiciera un entierro en un cementerio si no lo hay, en esos cases, puede pedirse autoridad
especial para enterrar un
cadaver fuera del cementerio,
Art. 1074, Codigo Administrative Revisado;
pero per encima de todo esto, lo que
salta a la vista es que los procesados
no habian obrado de la manera como obraron,
por pura necesidad, por fuerza mayor, por decirlo asi, obraron
mas bien para demostrar un poco de superioridad sabre el cura, para convencerle de que son ellos los
poderosos en material de entierros
en el cementerio catolico, pues, no solamente manejaron conseguir una nota del tesorero,
Exhibit 1, en que se indicara
el cementerio catolico como el sitio del entierro, no solamente demostraron el misrno al cura e inclusive amenazaron a este para ceder,
sino que con mañose ,enredo esquivando su interdicto,
engañaron el portero Demetrio haciendole creer que ellos
asurmirian la responsibilidad
y luego, ya cuando dentro del cementerio, dieron curso a la obser­vancia de sus rites, cantando los himnos de su
secta; recuerdese que ellos mismos
trataron de probar de que no hubo cantos de himnos, cosa que
de per si quierre decir que esos
no eran de rigor, y si es que cantaron,
coma se ha probado que sr, sin duda fu 6 para dar mas
golpe y saber a su triunfo sobre la Iglesia Catolica; toda esta maniobra
no puede menos de convencer de que no fue per fuerza mayor porque tuviesen que hacer lo que
hicieron, era pura impertinencia, un plan preconcebido,
para ponerse per encima del cura y de la Iglesia Catolica que personificaba; por lo mismo de haberse trocado los papeles, de haberse perte­necido el cementerio a los Testigos de Jehovah, y el cura par­roco de la Iglesia Catoilca no obstante previa prohibicion de ellos hubiese tenido
la impertinencia de mandar enterrarse a una catolica en el mismo, llevandose a cabo la sepultura con todas las solemnidades catolicas, sin duda que los Testigos
hubiesen y con mucha razon, acudido a los Tribunales de Justicia en queja de agraviados; * * *.”^[5]

The Court of Appeals in its decision of August 1, 1968 modi­fied the, judgment of the
lower court finding petitioners, the accused in the criminal case, guilty of
unjust vexation and im­posing on each of them the penalty of 30 days of arresto menor and a
fine of P100.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.  Hence this petition for
certiorari.  Considering the facts
as they presented themselves as well as the legal points raised
in this petition, this Court, in a resolution of December 9, 1968, denied the same for lack of merit.

Then came this motion for
reconsideration, petitioners insisting that the vital legal problem presented
is the liability of a husband to be penalized with imprisonment and fine in
burying the remains of his deceased wife in the only place for burial in the
municipality in question.  Citing the
appropriate provisions of the Revised Administrative Code which imposed a duty
on the widower to bury the remains of his deceased wife within 48 hours, and
there being no other place for such burial, petitioners would assert that no
crime of unjust vexation could have been committed by them under the
circumstances.

The motion for reconsideration was referred to the Solicitor
General for comment in a resolution of January
8, 1969.  A comment to the
following effect was, on January 20, 1969, sub­mitted to us by the Solicitor
General: “[Come now] the undersigned counsel for respondent and in
compliance with the resolution of this Honorable Court dated January 8, 1969,
requiring comment on the motion for reconsideration filed by counsel for
petitioners, to this Honorable Court respectfully state in opposition thereto
that the grounds relied upon in said motion had already been refuted by the
undersigned in their appellee’s brief and had been
threshed out and disposed of by the trial court and the Honorable Court of
Appeals.  Hence, the instant motion for
reconsideration should be denied.”

Were it not for the facts as found by the Court of Appeals which
we must respect, the specific question raised by peti­tioners in the motion for
reconsideration cannot be accurately characterized as entirely devoid of
merit.  There being a legal duty cast on
the survivor to bury the remains of the deceased within a definite period and
there being only one cemetery, it could be asserted with some degree of
plausibility that the performance of a legal duty could not be the basis of a
criminal prosecution.

With the facts being clear, however, that petitioners in effect
took the law in their own hands by employing force, their claim to be included
within the mantle of protection it affords cannot be viewed with sympathy.  The rule of law would be meaningless, if any
and every effort coming from whatever quarter even under the stress of
provocation, in defiance of legal norms, by the employment of force, except
perhaps in some such legitimate instance as self-defense, would not be
considered reprehensible.^[6]
Under the above circumstances, no judicial relief could be afforded
petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied, and
the resolution of December 9, 1968
denying for lack of merit this petition for review of the decision of the Court
of Appeals is reiterated.  Without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, and Capistrano,
JJ., did not take
part.

^[1]
Art. 287, par. 2, Revised Penal Code.

^[2]
Art. 133, Revised Penal Code.

^[3]
Annex A, Decision of the Court of Appeals, August 1, 1968, pp. 1-2.

^[4]
Petition for Review, p. 3.

^[5]
Annex A, Decision of the Court of Appeals, 9-11

^[6]
Cf. Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Salvador,
L-29487, Sept. 28, 1968 and
Kibad vs. Commission on Elections, L-28469, Oct. 29, 1968.