II. Article 133 as a crime against the Fundamental Laws of the State
III. Religious Freedom
A. Provision(s) on the religious clauses
B. Provision(s) on the Separation of Church and State
IV. Discussion on Article 133 RPC
A. Article 133, Act 3815 : Offending the religious feelings (Ofensa a los sentimientos religiosos)
B. Is Article 133 RPC still operative?
1. The end of theocracy at the advent of American colonization
2. Origin of Article 133 RPC
a. El Código Penal de 1870 (Spain)
b. Penal Code of 1884 (Philippine Islands)
3. Articles 233 and 571 of the Penal Code of 1884 in relation to the 1930 Revised Penal Code
4. Reenactment of previously inoperative provisions of the Penal Code of 1884, through Articles 131 and 132 RPC
C. Should “Crimes against religious worship” even be in Philippine penal statutes?
D. Could Freedom of Speech be claimed as a defense for violation of a subsisting penal provision?
E. Has Article 133 been challenged for its constitutionality?
F. Are the elements of Article 133, without doubt, present?
1. Elements of Article 133 RPC
a. Acts complained of were performed in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony
i. Place devoted to religious worship
ii. During the celebration of any religious ceremony
iii. Alternative scenarios in the clauses of the first element
b. Act was notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful
i. Notoriously offensive
ii. Religious feelings of the faithful
G. Act punishable under Article 133 RPC or under some other RPC provision?
1. Acts not within purview of Article 133 RPC
2. Was the act really punishable under Article 133 RPC?
V. Miscellaneous Issues
A. Priests and Article 133 RPC
B. Church interference on political matters
C. Personal matters
I cannot speak for or against the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila  relating to the case of Carlos Celdran, who was found guilty of offending religious feeling under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), or Act 3815 , on 28 January 2013, as it is an ongoing case.   I can only look into legal precepts which may be relevant in appreciating the controversy. , and maybe stray once in a while on political matters incidental to the controversy.