Villanueva vs People 521 Phil. 191 [Case Digest]

68 – Slander

Villanueva vs People

521 Phil. 191 [Case Digest]

 

Facts:

            On September 12, 1994 at the SB Office in the Municipal Building of Concepcion, Tarlac, in the presence of several persons and again in the afternoon on or about four thirty (4:30 PM) at the Old Session Hall of the Municipal Building in presence of the complainant and in the presence of several persons, defendant NOEL L. VILLANUEVA, in a loud voice and within hearing distance of everyone present, uttered in a serious and insulting manner at the undersigned complainant the following words: ["]Nagmamalinis ca, ena ca man malinis, garapal ca["] and "Balamu mansanas cang malutu, pero queng quilib ularan ca, tictac carinat" (You are pretending to be clean and honest yet you are not clean and honest, you are corrupt; you are like a red apple, but inside you are worm infested and extremely dirty).

Issue:

            Whether or not the accused is guilty of Grave Oral Defamation

Held:

            No. The accused is guilty only of slight oral defamation

Ratio:

            There is grave slander when it is of a serious and insulting nature. The gravity of the oral defamation depends not only (1) upon the expressions used, but also (2) on the personal relations of the accused and the offended party, and (3) the circumstances surrounding the case.

However, SC, likewise, ruled in the past that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the part of the offended party constitutes only a light felony.

Submitted by:  G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

SANTOS vs CA 203 SCRA 110 [Case Digest]

61

SANTOS vs CA

203 SCRA 110

Facts:

            On February 23, 1970, Nanerico Santos as a columnist of the Manila Daily Bulletin wrote and published in his weekly column an article entitled “Charges against CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc.” which article was quoted verbatim from an unverified complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 1970 by Rosario Sison Sandejas and her daughters charging CMS Stock Brokerage Inc., particularly its board chairman and controlling stockholders Carlos Moran Sison and its president-general manager Luis F. Sison, of engaging in fraudulent practices in the stock market. On the very day that the news item appeared, Carlos M. Sison sought a meeting with petitioner Santos so that he could submit to the columnist his reply which he wanted to published “the very next day” and in the same column. Petitioner promised Sison that he would have the reply published, not on the next day, but on February 25, 1970 issue of the Manila Daily Bulletin because “it was already past the deadline for the next day’s issue.”

The reply was not published on February 25, 1970 as petitioner had promised and so Carlos Moran Sison called petitioner by phone to tell him not to publish the reply anymore as it would only rekindle the talks. Sison also informed petitioner that he would be sued for libel, to which statement petitioner retorted: “Well, sue me for libel.” About a week later when Carlos Moran Sison chanced upon petitioner at the Hotel Intercontinental lobby, the latter asked Sison, “When will you sue me?”

Issue:

            Whether or not the publication of a complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission before any judicial action is taken thereon is privileged as a report of a judicial proceeding

Held:

            Yes.

Ratio:

            Publication of a complaint, being a true and fair report of a judicial proceeding, made in good faith and without comments or remarks, is privileged and comes under Item 2 of Article 354.

Submitted by: G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Sazon vs CA 255 SCRA 692 [Case Digest]

62

Sazon vs CA

255 SCRA 692

 

Image link: Facebook

Facts:

Private complainant and the petitioner ran in the election held by PML-Parang Bagong Lipunan Community Association, Inc. (PML-BLCA), an association of homeowners of PML Homes. The petitioner was elected as a director and president of the homeowners' association. Unable to accept defeat, the private complainant contested the said election. Private complainant also wrote his co-homeowners explaining to them his election protest and urging them not to recognize the petitioner and the other members who won in the election. A phrase "Sazon (petitioner), nasaan ang pondo ng simbahan?" was seen boldly written on the walls near the entrance gate of the subdivision. Thinking that only private complainant was responsible, petitioner Sazon wrote in an issue of PML-Homemakers, in which he is the editor, an article against the complainant using words such as "mandurugas," "mag-ingat sa panlilinlang," "matagal na tayong niloloko," "may kasamang pagyayabang," "angating pobreng super kulit," "patuloy na kabulastugan," "mastermind sa paninirang puri," etc. to describe him.

Issue:

Whether the questioned article written by the petitioner is libelous

Held:

            Yes.

Ratio:

The test to determine the defamatory character of words was satisfied in the case at bench because the words and phrases "mandurugas," "mag-ingat sa panlilinlang," "matagal na tayong niloloko," "may kasamang pagyayabang," "ang ating pobreng super kulit." "patuloy na kabulastugan," "mastermind sa paninirang puri," etc are indisputably defamatory for they impute upon the private complainant a condition that is dishonorable and shameful, since they tend to describe him as a swindler and/or a deceiver.

Submitted by: G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang