G.R. No. 45780 - Baes vs. Judge of 1st Instance of Laguna

The petitioner, Rev. Fr. Jose M. Baes, then Parish Priest of the Roman Catholic Church in Lumban, Laguna, filed a criminal complaint on April 22, 1937, in the justice of the peace court of Lumban.

The complaint charged Enrique Villarosa, Alejandro Lacbay, and Bernardo del Rosario with the crime of "offending the religious feelings" under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.

The complaint detailed that on April 14, 1937, at about 9 o’clock a.m., during the funeral services of Antonio Macabigtas, the accused allowed the funeral procession, conducted according to the rites of the Iglesia de Cristo, to pass through the courtyard of the Roman Catholic Church.

The petitioner alleged that the accused, by force and threats of maltreatment, compelled him to allow the procession through a space devoted to religious worship, thereby causing public offense and grave profanation of the sacred place.

Following the filing of the complaint, the accused were informed of the charges; they pleaded not guilty and waived a preliminary investigation.

The case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Laguna and docketed as criminal case No. 11189.

Instead of filing an information, the respondent provincial fiscal presented a motion for dismissal on the ground that the act in question did not constitute the crime charged as per the spirit of Article 133.

On August 31, 1937, the respondent judge granted the fiscal’s motion to dismiss, though without prejudice to the fiscal filing a fresh information if additional facts were later discovered.

Dissatisfied with the dismissal order, the petitioner appealed the decision, which led to further proceedings.

On September 10, 1937, the respondent judge issued an order denying the appeal, and the petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration, filed on September 13, 1937, was also denied.

The crux of the matter is whether the respondent judge acted erroneously by refusing to admit the petitioner’s appeal from the dismissal order based on the view of the fiscal that the facts alleged did not constitute the crime charged.

Whether the respondent judge committed an error by refusing to admit and give due course to the petitioner’s appeal challenging the dismissal order.
Whether the facts alleged in the complaint legally constitute the crime of "offending the religious feelings" under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the injured party, represented by the petitioner, is entitled to appeal an order of dismissal arising from a motion filed by the prosecuting attorney.
Whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy to correct what is considered an error of law in the dismissal of a criminal complaint.