GR 41757; (November, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 41757 ; November 13, 1934
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO NOSCE, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Antonio Nosce, slapped Reverend Father Ulric Arcand, a Catholic priest, on the cheek in front of a large congregation. The incident occurred at the main door of the parish church in Lucena, Tayabas, immediately after a confirmation ceremony presided over by a bishop. Father Arcand was in a surplice, having just participated in the religious ceremonies and procession. Nosce, who was part of a group seeking the priest’s transfer, approached Father Arcand to speak with him. When the priest said he had no time to talk, Nosce struck him. The trial court convicted Nosce under both Article 133 (offending religious feelings) and Article 359 (slander by deed) of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE
Whether the appellant’s act of slapping a priest under the given circumstances constitutes a violation of Article 133, Article 359, or a lesser offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that the act did not constitute a violation of Article 133, as that provision punishes acts *notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful* in a place of worship or during a ceremony, which is distinct from the offense of insulting a minister in the performance of his functions (which was penalized under Spanish law but not expressly adopted in the Revised Penal Code). Instead, the Court found the appellant guilty under the first paragraph of Article 359 (Slander by Deed) for performing an act of a serious nature which cast dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person. The Court emphasized that the act was committed against a person invested with sacerdotal dignity while officiating in solemn ceremonies before a large congregation, magnifying the dishonor. The penalty was adjusted to an indeterminate sentence of three months of arresto mayor minimum to one year and one day of prision correccional maximum.
Separate Opinions:
Justice Malcolm, joined by Justices Abad Santos and Goddard, dissented, believing the offense constituted only slight physical injuries punishable by a small fine, arguing that no special privilege attaches to assaulting a church official over an ordinary citizen. Justice Hull dissented on the ground that the act fell under the second (less serious) provision of Article 359.
AI Generated by Armztrong.