Private complainant in a SLANDER BY DEED case

Art 358 – Slander

What is slander?

Slander is oral defamation

Two Kinds of oral defamation

1. Simple slander

2. Grave slander, when it is of a serious and insulting nature

Factors that determine the gravity of oral defamation

1. The expressions used.

2. The personal relations of the accused and the offended party.

3. The circumstances surrounding the case.

Note: slander need not be heard by the offended party.

©Cases

Reyes vs. People 27 SCRA 686 March 28, 1969 – 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 do not be a common funk” etc. The rallyists followed Hallare to his house wherein Reyes shouted “Agustin Putang Ina mo. Mawala ka na. Lumabas ka, papatayin kita!” He was charged with grave threats and grave oral defamation.

SC:

1. The conviction for grave threats is sustained despite the deletion of the world “orally” (describing the word “threaten”) since the 3 elements of a threat existed. The demonstration led by the accused also created in the mind of the complainant the belief that the accused will make good on his threat2. The charge of oral defamation cannot be sustained since the utterance of “Putang ina mo” is commonly employed not for slander but to express anger or displeasure. In the case, it should be viewed as parts of the threat voiced by the accused. DOCTRINE: Libelous/slanderous remarks that are attendant to threats maybe considered as mere preparatory remarks culminating in the threat and therefore are absorbed in the crime of threats and cannot be the basis for another charge for slander

People vs. Pelayo, 64 OG 1991, September 20, 1966 – Appellant Pantaleon V. Pelayo Jr. was the councilor of Davao city and hurled accusations against Governor Alejandro Almendras of receiving protection money from Chinese gambling operators. Appellant stated such allegations twice: once in the office of Atty. Clapano within hearing distance of 3 people and in a privileged speech he delivered in a regular session of the City council. Appellant offers the defense of privileged communication and self-defense

S.C.

Private complainant in a SLANDER BY DEED case

1. The contention of privileged communication is inconsistent with the contention of self-defense. Self-defense would have required some publicity which is anathema to the contention of uttering it in a privileged communication with Atty. Clapano. Also, he uttered such statements in a privileged speech and was heard by 3 people in the Clapano conversation

2. The offense does not constitute intriguing against honor since the information came from a definite source, the Chinese gambler and it was passed by the accused for the purpose of committing dishonor to the complainant. The elements of intriguing against honor are 1.) Unidentified source 2.) The accused passes it on without subscribing to the truth thereof

3. Self-defense cannot apply since his statements were made independent of the previous allegations the governor supposedly made against him

DOCTRINE: Self-defense maybe invoked in slander but it must have the following requirements: 1.) defendant should not go beyond explaining his side to minimize the damage of the slanderous remarks made against him 2.) defendant can only counter with slanderous/scurrilous remarks if they are necessary for his explanation or defense

People vs. Prieto, 71 OG 3251, June 2, 1975 – The accused Florentino Prieto uttered defamatory statements against the complainant Esterlita Vicente on at least 2 occasions. The accused told his mother-in-law’s kumare that “he dated Esterlita and would not marry her since they already enjoy the pleasure of dating”. The accused also told Sinda Linda Plaza that Esterlita was “badly damaged and that he would just make use of her and to have pleasure with her in the kitchen”. Sinda Linda Plaza then conveyed the same to the complainant Erlinda.

S.C.

1. The accused blanket denial which is not based on an iota of evidence falls

2. The accused defense that he did not utter such statements to the victim’s friends or community cannot prevail over the doctrine.

DOCTRINE: The requirement of “being uttered in public” is satisfied when delivered in a manner that makes it possible for the public to know it, even if actually only one person happens to learn of it.

People vs. Mendoza, 74 OG 5607 – The accused, Cristina Mendoza (a school teacher) was seen by the complainant, Victoria Jamelo (also a school teacher) and several witnesses uttering the following statements in the direction of the provincial road from her house: “You Victoria, when you were single many had sex with you because your are confident you will not bear a child. Your vagina is odorous. You have leucorrhea. Your husband is a homosexual, uncircumcised and henpecked (HARSH!!!)” The accused claims that it was the complainant who uttered such statements and not her.

S.C.

1. The witness for the prosecution were more credible. They were all volunteers and not ill-motives were proven by the defense on their credibility

2. Defense also posits the defense that it has not been established as to “who hurled the first stone” but the prosecution witnesses were able to establish that it was indeed the accused who started it. However, even if the complainant was the one who started it, the accused would not be justified in slandering the former

DOCTRINE (more on self-defense)

- The complainant 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 the basis of self-defense

Private complainant in a SLANDER BY DEED case

Victorio vs. CA, 111 SCRA 609, May 31, 1989 – Petitioners were heard by a policeman uttering defamatory statements which contained the allegation that the complainant, Atty. Ruiz, was “suwapang and an estapador”. Both were charged with Serious Oral Defamation. The older petioner died and the younger petitioner appealed that he should only be charged for slight oral defamation

S.C.

1. Oral defamation or slander has been defined as speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood

2. To determine whether an offense is serious or slight, the doctrine of ancient respectability which determines if remarks are serious or slight depending on their sense and grammatical meaning, while also considering the special circumstances, antecedents and relationship of the offended and offending parties.

3. Defamatory words uttered specifically against a lawyer touching on his profession are libelous per se.

People vs. Judge Orcullo, 111 SCRA 609, January 30, 1982 – The accused Venida Peralta uttered the ff slanderous words against Lydia Flores: “A hostess and has a paramour, any kind of penis has penetrated your vagina.” within the hearing distance of several people. The accused filed a motion to quash on the grounds that the crime alleged cannot be prosecuted de oficio because the crime being imputed by the accused is that of adultery against Lydia is therefore a private crime and must be brought by a complaint filed by the complainant (according to par. 5, Art. 360 RPC). Respondent judge quashes the charge on such grounds

S.C.

1. The Sol-Gen’s comment is correct that the crime being imputed is not adultery but prostitution because of the usage of hostess which has taken a notiorius connotation and since the charge does not allege that the victim is married and should thus be presumed single.

2. In people vs. Hong Din Chu, an imputation that a married woman is a prostitute not only proclaims her as an adulterer, which is a private offense, but also as one who has committed a crime against public moral, prostitution and can therefore be prosecuted de oficio.

3. It must be noted that only when the derogatory remarks clearly and categorically reflect the elements of adultery would the complaint for libel/slander by the offended party be necessary to commence prosecution.

Art 359 – Slander by Deed

What is Slander by Deed?

It is a crime against honor which is committed by performing any act which casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person.

Elements

Private complainant in a SLANDER BY DEED case

1. Offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor2. Such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon the offended party

2 Kinds of Slander by Deed

1. Simple slander by deed

2. Grave slander by deed, of a serious nature

The Gravity of the slander by deed is determined by:

a. the social standing of the offended party

b. the circumstances under which the act was committed.

c. the occasion, etc.

Difference between Slander by Deed and Acts of Lasciviousness

People vs. Valencia – kissing and touching a girl’s breast in public is slander by deed when it is committed with the intent to dishonor the girl and if committed without lewd designs (labo. How can that not have lewd designs?

©Cases

People vs. Motita, 59 OG 3020, April 30, 1966 – Accused was seen in the public market holding a mirror between the legs of the complainant Mrs. Pilar N. Letada and thus allowing people to see a reflection of her private part. Sol-Gen agrees that what was committed was slander by deed but disagrees on the gravity of the deed and says that it is not serious

S.C.

1. The crime committed could be unjust vexation or slander by deed. However, though irritation or annoyance exists in both crimes, slander by deed is committed when such annoyance is attended with publicity, dishonor or contempt. If the annoyance was attended by those circumstances mentioned in rape, the crime would be acts of lasciviousness. The facts of the case show that the act committed was slander by deed.

2. We disagree with the Sol-Gen regarding his comment on the gravity of the slander by deed. In considering the seriousness of the act, we are moved by considerations of public policy and morals, namely, the degeneration of the respect accorded to Filipinas.

Private complainant in a SLANDER BY DEED case

Private complainant in a SLANDER BY DEED case

DIRECT EXAMINATION

We are calling the private complainant for Criminal Case No. 123 for Slander by deed , Ms._____________________. We are offering the testimony of the private complainant to prove her allegations.

Q: Mam can you please introduce yourself to the court, your address and your current occupation.

A:

Q: Do you know personally the defendant of this case? How ?

A:

Q: I would now like to draw your attention to March 14th of this year.

Q: Are you at work?

Q: Did you see the defendant on March 14 at work?

Q:Are you able to speak with the defendant? Right after that, what happened?

A: (let the complainant narrate the story)

Q: Can you describe the place where the incident happened.

Q: Are there people around you?

How did the people around you react after the incident?

Private complainant in a SLANDER BY DEED case

Evidence:

1.

2.

3.

MPORTANT

Factors to consider before filing the case of Slander by Deeds:a)    The expression used including their sense, grammatical significance and accepted ordinary meaning.b)    The personal relations of the accused and the offended party, as when both are bitter enemies.c)     The special circumstances of the case and its antecedents, such as the time, place and occasion of the utterances, persons present. d)    The social standing and position of the offended party.

Words uttered in the heat of anger or in a quarrel, with some provocation on the part of the victim, is simple slander.a)    The victim may not have heard the words, it is enough that a third person heard them.b)    Words uttered in one occasion and place and directed at several persons not mentioned individually constitute only one offense.c)     Words used as expletives (to express anger, displeasure, are not defamatory)

CROSS -EXAMINATION