Reyes vs People 27 SCRA 686 [Case Digest]

65 - Slander

Reyes vs People

27 SCRA 686 [Case Digest]

 

Facts:

            Petitioner Rosauro Reyes was a former civilian employee at the Navy Exchange at Sangley Point whose services were terminated by Agustin Hallare and Frank Nolan.  A month after,he led a group of about 20-30 persons in a demonstration in front of the Naval Station. They carried placards saying “Agustin, mamatay ka na!” “Frank donot be a common funk” etc. The rallyists followed Hallare to his housewherein Reyes shouted “Agustin Putang Ina mo. Mawala ka na. Lumabas ka, papatayin kita!” He was charged with grave threats and grave oral defamation.

Issue:

            Whether or not the accused is guilty of Slander

Held:

            No.

Ratio:

            The words, "Agustin, putang ina mo" is a common enough expression in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. In the instant case, it should be viewed as part of the threats voiced by appellant against Agustin Hallare, evidently to make the same more emphatic.

Submitted by: G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Victorio vs CA 173 SCRA 645 [Case Digest]

66 - Slander

Victorio vs CA

173 SCRA 645 [Case Digest]

Facts:

            Atty. Vivencio Ruiz has been the attorney of petitioner Exequiel Victorio in certain civil cases from 1953 until 1963 when petitioner decided to hire the services of another lawyer, Atty. L. Castillo in place of Atty. Ruiz and his collaborator Judge Alfredo Guiang, then Municipal Judge of Guimba, Nueva Ecija. Petitioners were overheard by Emiliano Manuzon, a policeman of Cabanatuan City and one of the witnesses for the prosecution, to have uttered the defamatory words:

Daniel: "Kayabang ng putang-inang abogadong Ruiz na iyan, tunaw naman ang utak, suwapang at estapador."

Exequiel: "Lastog ta ukinnanata abogado Ruiz, suwapang, estapador, paltogak ta ukinana ta abogado Ruiz, suwapang ken estapador." (Translated in Tagalog as, Mayabang yang putang-inang abogado Ruiz na iyan, babarilin ko ang putang inang iyan, suwapang at estapador.")

Issue:

            Whether or not the accused are guilty of Slander

Held:

            Yes

Ratio:

            Appellant-petitioner admitted having called Atty. Vivencio Ruiz, “kayabang,” “tunaw na utak,” “swapang,” and "estapador", which attributes to the latter the crime of estafa, a serious and insulting imputation. Defamatory words uttered specifically against a lawyer when touching on his profession are libellous per se.

Submitted by: G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

People vs Judge Orcullo 111 SCRA 609 [Case Digest]

67 - Slander

People vs Judge Orcullo

111 SCRA 609 [Case Digest]

 

Facts:

On September 4, 1978, a special counsel in the Office of the City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro filed information for Oral Defamation against private respondent for the derogatory remarks stated against Lydia Flores in the presence and within the hearing of many people to wit: “a hostess and a paramour, any kind of penis had penetrated your vagina.” After a plea of not guilty, private respondent filed a motion to squash alleging that since the words uttered imputed to the offended party the crime of adultery, she being a married woman, the crime cannot be prosecuted de oficio but must be brought by complaint of the offended party as provided in paragraph 5, Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.

Issue:

            Whether or not the derogatory remarks- “a hostess and a paramour, any kind of penis had penetrated your vagina”- imputes adultery or prostitution

Held:

            Prostitution

Ratio:

It must be noted that it is only when the derogatory remarks clearly and categorically reflect the elements constituting adultery would the complaint for libel by the offended party be necessary to commence prosecution. In this case, however, the derogatory remarks of accused-respondent, not only do not clearly show the elements of adultery but on the contrary, such remarks indubitably impute the crimes of prostitution. Therefore, the information for libel can be filed without the complaint of the offended party.

Submitted by: G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

People vs. Aragon 100 Phil 1033 Case Digest

52

People vs. Aragon

100 Phil 1033

Facts:

On September 28, 1925, the accused, Proceso Rosima, contracted marriage with a certain Maria Gorrea in the Philippine Independent Church in Cebu. While his marriage with Maria Gorrea was subsisting, the accused under the name of Proceso Aragon, contracted a canonical marriage with Maria Faicol on August 27, 1934, in the Santa Teresita Church in Iloilo City.

The first wife of Proceso Rosima/Aragon, Maria Gorrea died in Cebu City on August 5, 1939.  After Maria Gorrea's death, and seeing that the coast was dear in Cebu, the accused brought Maria Faicol to Cebu City in 1940.  During Maria Faicol’s absence, the accused contracted a third marriage with a certain Jesusa C. Maglasang on October 3, 1953, in Sibonga, Cebu.

.

Issue:

            Whether or not the marriage of Proceso Aragon and Maria Faicol is valid

Held:

            No.-

Ratio:

A subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the lifetime of his first spouse is illegal and void from its performance, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity, as distinguished from mere annullable marriages.

Submitted by: G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

People vs. Sangalang 74 OG 5977 Case Digest [Simulation of Birth]

51

People vs. Sangalang

74 OG 5977

FACTS:

The Sangalang spouses together with Gloria and Bienvenido were charged of the crime of simulation of birth. The information alleged that a child was furnished by Gloria to the Sangalangs. Accused Bienvenido registered the birth of said child in the local civil registrar by supplying to said office the necessary information required so that a birth certificate would be issued. He named the Sangalangs as the child’s parents. A birth certificate was hence issued.  Information did not contain any specific allegation as to what the spouses did, except that they had conspired with Gloria and Bienvenido.

ISSUE:

            Whether or not the accused (Sangalan Spouses) are guilty of Simulation of Birth

HELD:

            No.

Ratio:

By merely presenting a child as having born to the accused from feigned pregnancy or pretended delivery, the crime is not committed if the legal formalities of investing a child with a civil status other than her own are not present.

Submitted by: G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang