Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Officers of the Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay, an organization of elderly men, including petitioner Martin Centeno, launched a fund drive to renovate the chapel of Barrio Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioner and Vicente Yco solicited a contribution of P1,500.00 from Judge Adoracion G. Angeles. The solicitation was made without a permit from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Procedural History: An information was filed against petitioner and others for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1564 (Solicitation Permit Law). Petitioner filed a motion to quash, arguing that PD 1564 only covers solicitations for charitable or public welfare purposes, not religious ones. The motion was denied. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) found petitioner and Vicente Yco guilty and sentenced them to a fine of P200.00 each, recommending pardon due to good faith. Both appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Vicente Yco withdrew his appeal. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision but modified the penalty, sentencing petitioner to 6 months imprisonment and a P1,000.00 fine, citing the perversity of the act. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning the applicability of PD 1564 to solicitations for religious purposes.
Issue(s)
Whether solicitations for religious purposes are covered by Presidential Decree No. 1564. Whether requiring a permit for solicitations for religious purposes constitutes an abridgment of the right to freedom of religion.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court, acquitting petitioner Martin Centeno of the offense charged. The Court held that solicitations for religious purposes are not within the ambit of Presidential Decree No. 1564.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether solicitations for religious purposes are covered by Presidential Decree No. 1564: The Court held in the negative. It applied the rule of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, stating that the express mention of "charitable or public welfare purposes" excludes other purposes. The Court noted that other statutes and the Constitution treat "charitable" and "religious" separately, indicating that the framers of PD 1564 did not intend to include religious purposes within its coverage. Furthermore, penal laws are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. To include religious purposes within the scope of PD 1564 would be prejudicial to the petitioner and would violate the principle of strict construction of penal statutes. The Court emphasized that while religious activities depend on voluntary contributions and may be considered charitable in nature, the terms are not interchangeable, and a broader interpretation of "charitable" to include "religious" in a penal statute would be unwarranted. On the issue of whether requiring a permit for solicitations for religious purposes constitutes an abridgment of the right to freedom of religion: The Court acknowledged that while the State may regulate conduct that may cause injury to its citizens, and can regulate the time and manner of solicitation in the interest of public safety, peace, comfort, or convenience, such regulation must not unduly infringe on protected freedoms. The Court reiterated that even the exercise of religion may be regulated to protect citizens from fraudulent solicitation. However, it concluded that PD 1564, as it is written, does not cover solicitations for religious purposes. Therefore, the question of whether such regulation would constitute an abridgment of the freedom of religion, while a valid concern, was rendered moot by the interpretation of the statute itself. The Court noted that even if regulation were permissible, it must be done in a manner that does not unreasonably obstruct or delay the collection of funds for religious purposes.
Main Doctrine
Solicitations for religious purposes are not covered by Presidential Decree No. 1564, which requires a permit for solicitations for 'charitable or public welfare purposes,' as the term 'charitable' should be strictly construed in penal laws to exclude religious purposes, thereby upholding the constitutional right to freedom of religion.