WON Reyes is guilty of grave threats. YES. Elements of Grave Threat
Offender threatened another person with the infliction upon his person of a wrong
That such wrong amounted to a crime That the threat was not subject to a condition
Reyes’ actions and threats were made “with the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the person threatened the belief that the threat would be carried into effect.” Hallare became so apprehensive of his safety that he sought the protection of Col. Monzon who ha to escort him home, wherein he stayed while the demonstration was going on.
It cannot be denied that the threats were made deliberately and not merely in a temporary fit of anger.
The charge of oral defamation stemmed from the utterance of “Agustin, putang ina mo.” However, this is a common enough expression in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure.
– Giselle Munoz
PEOPLE V. PELAYO
VILLAMOR, J. / 20 SEPTEMBER 1966 NATURE: Appeal from Davao CFI
FACTS:
Pantaleon Pelayo, a city councilor of Davao City, told Atty. Clapano (a fellow councilor), that Governor Alejandro Almendras receives bribe money from Lim Peng (a Chinese gambling operator). Three people heard the conversation.
It was alleged that Almendras received 500 pesos monthly and he also demanded that Lim Peng should double the amount. Lim Peng gave his watch which costs 250 pesos. Pelayo said that Almendras later raided Lim Peng’s place when the latter was unable to pay. Pelayo later delivered a privileged speech during the session of the council. In it, he denounced gambling in the area; although without directly mentioning the governor as receiving “tongs,” reference to the latter became obvious during interpellation.
Pelayo’s defense:
1) The conversation was privileged and he uttered those words in confidence; 2) He was just intriguing against Almendras’s honor;
3) It was a form of self-defense against Almendras’s speech a few days before. ISSUES: WON Pelayo is guilty of slander or just intriguing against honor? He is guilty of slander.
RATIO:
The court said that the contention of self-defense does not lie. If the communication was for self-defense, it should be public, and not done in private. Also, he made a speech about it the next day. Three people also heard him; he could not have given the information in confidence.
Slander is committed when the source of the information can be determined, and the accused, adopting as his own the information he has obtained, passes the same to the other for the purpose of causing dishonor. Intriguing against honor is where the source of the information can’t be pinpointed and the accused borrows the same and, without subscribing to the truth thereof, passes it on.
Self-defense in libel and slander may be invoked. However, the accused should not retaliate with scurrilous words that are entirely independent of, and apart from, the alleged imputation or he should not go beyond explaining what has been said of him/her. DISPOSITION: He is ordered to pay a fine of 100 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed 15 days in case of insolvency; to pay nominal damage of 200 pesos to Almendras and the costs of the suit.
– Ryan Oliva
PEOPLE V. PRIETO
PEOPLE V. MENDOZA
FEBRUARY 8, 1977 NATURE: Appeal from a Judgment of the Court of First Instance FACTS:
About noon on July 26, 1971, in barrio San Roque, Southern Leyte, complainant Victoria Jamelo had just called her maid to get ready for lunch when the former heard accused-appellant Cristina Mendoza, a neighbor saying: “Waray is backbiting me and teaching her maid to be mad at me.”
Complainant Victoria Jamelo knew that Cristina Mendoza was referring to her when she heard the latter utter the word “waray”.
Both Jamelo and Mendoza are public school teachers and both were in their respective houses (their houses are a meter apart from each other) when Jamelo heard Mendoza.
Victoria Jamelo went to the porch of her house and from there she saw Cristina Mendoza facing the provincial road.
Victoria Jamelo then said to Cristina Mendoza: “Why will you interfere in my house helper when we have a separate family?”
“You, when you were still single many had sexual intercourse with you because you are confident that you will not bear a child!”
“Your vagina is odorous, a woman with leucorrhea.”
“Your husband is a homosexual, uncircumcised, he is under your command and henpecked”
Victoria simply countered by saying: “Is yours perfumed?”
The incident happened with the husband of Victoria Jamelo and some pupils around, the place of the incident being near the school premises.
The prosecution provided three witnesses to attest to the facts and the witnesses testified that accused did in fact state those words.
Accused-appellant on the other hand, claimed that it was complainant Victoria Jamelo who defamed, dishonored and discredited her
Accused-appellant avers that when she got home from school at noon that day, her maid told her that Mrs. Jamelo had scolded her maid telling the latter not to fetch water from her (accused-appellants) house and if the maid would insist she would break the pail; that Mrs. Jamelo told her maid not to eat in accused-appellant’s house because they would not be able to repay them.
Accused further alleges that when she asked Mrs. Jamelo why she had scolded her maid, Mrs. Jamelo closed the door to her house and went to the balcony where she said, referring to Mrs. Jamelo, “You have leucorrhea, many have succeeded in having sexual intercourse with you and you had sexual intercourse with a man sick with syphilis”
Reacting on what Mrs. Jamelo said to her, she asked who that man was and all Mrs. Jamelo said was “Basts, basta.”
Accused-appellant also presented witnesses to corroborate her testimony.
The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s evidence and witnesses and rejected the claim of the accused and her witnesses as unbelievable.
The trial court convicted her of simple slander under Art. 358 of the RPC instead of grave oral defamation as charged by the prosecution.
ISSUES:
Is the evidence by the prosecution enough to convict accused of slander beyond reasonable doubt?
Can the accused be acquitted by claiming self-defense if in fact it was complainant who first uttered the slanderous words?
HELD:
Yes, evidence is enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt.
No, accused cannot claim self-defense even if it may be argued that complainant was first at fault.
RATIO:
Evidence is enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt.
Trial court observed the testimonies of the witnesses and found that they were delivered in a straightforward manner and were clear, positive and natural. This was not said about the witnesses for the defense.
Fact that the witnesses presented by the prosecution were volunteer witnesses does not imply that they gave perjured testimonies.
The witnesses went up to volunteer because of the desire to have the guilty punished and the innocent vindicated.
A circumstance that militates against the pretension of innocence of the accused- appellant is her offer to give P100.00 to one of the prosecution witnesses in exchange for not testifying against her.
It is strange also, that if it was accused-appellant who was defamed, she never filed any criminal complaint against complainant.
The evidence of the prosecution is credible enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused.
Claim of self-defense by accused cannot acquit her.
The plea of self-defense in stating that it was complainant who hurled the first stone and therefore the accused was justified in hurling a back at the complainant in an equally or more slanderous statement does not hold.
The contention is based on its own appraisal of the evidence of the accused, which the Trial Court and This Court rejected.
The defense isn’t even sure who hurled the first stone.
In the defenses brief it stated: “…it is virtually difficult to tell a war of words among womenfolk…who hurled the first stone, it may well be in the best tradition of justice to take the posture that since no clear, positive and strong evidence as to who started the quarrel….therefore that doubt attendant thereto which should, as it is be resolved in favor of the accused.”
Contrary to the above statement, the evidence of the prosecution is clear that it was the accused who slandered the complainant.
Even if it is true that complainant uttered first slanderous statements to the accused, the latter would not be justified in slandering the former.
Person slandered may be justified to hit back with another slander, only if his reply is made in good faith, without malice and is not necessarily defamatory of his assailant.
Retaliation or vindictiveness cannot be a basis of self-defense in defamation.
To repel an attack on his reputation, the defendant may make an explanation of the imputation, and it is only where, if by explaining, he must
of necessity have to use scurrilous and slanderous remarks, that he may be legally allowed to do so without placing himself under criminal prosecution. JUDGMENT: Decision appealed from affirmed with the modification that the fine be fixed at P100.00
– Jecky Pelaez