Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Castro vs People

Castro vs People

|Views: 18|Likes:
Published by Geelyn Catindig

More info:

Published by: Geelyn Catindig on Sep 10, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Castro vs. PeopleFacts:This case is a petition on certiorari emanated from the complain for grave oral defamation filed byAtty. Albert P. Tan against the petitioner Jerome CastroThe petitioner is the assistant of headmaster in the Reedly International School, while the privaterespondent Atty. Albert Tan is a parent of Justin Albert ,who is studying in the said School. The RIS issued aletter to the parents of Justine Albert that their son accumulated 34 code violation including public display of affection and conduct unbecoming of a gentleman. As a sanction, RIS exclude their son from participating inthe graduation ceremony. But Atty. Tan filed a complain in the Department of Education alleging that thedismissal of his son was undertaken with malice, bad faith and evident premeditation ------------Dep-Edrendered its decision in favor of Tan, ordering the RIS to readmit Justin Albert without any condition. Thus hewas able to participate in the graduation ceremonyOn the day of the graduation ceremony, Atty. Tan met Bernice C. Ching, a fellow parenr at RIS. Duringtheir conversation, Tan intimated that he was contemplating a suit against the officers of RIS in their personalcapacities, including the petitioner who was the assistant headmaster.Then Chin made a call to the petitioner and told him the plan of Tan to sue the officers of RIS in theirpersonal capacity, at the end of their conversation the petitioner
told ching “
okay, you too, take care and be
careful talking to tan, that’ 
s dangerous
. Ching then made another phone call to atty. Tan and informed himthat 
the petitioner said “
talking to him is dangerous
 Insulted, Tan filed a complaint for grave oral defamation in the office of the City prosecutor of Mandaluyong city against the petitioner on August 21, 2003On Nov. 3, 2003, petitioner was charge with oral defamation in the
Metropolitan trial court (MeTC)
The prosecution essentially tried to establish that the petitioner depicted Tan as dangerousman through the testimony given by Ching. Then Atty. Tan added that petitioner probablytook offense because of the complaint he filed against RIS in the Dep-Ed
The petitioner denied harboring ill-feelings against 
Tan despite the latter’s complaint against 
RIS in the Dep-Ed. Although he admitted conversing with Ching on the telephoneThe MeTC rendered its decision in favored of Atty. Tan finding the petitioner guilty beyond doubt of the crimeof grave oral defamation.On appeal, the RTC affirmed and modified the decision of MeTC declaring that the petitioner is guilty of slight oral defamation. But because Tan filed his complaint in the office of the City Prosecutor of MandaluyongCity on August 21, 2003, the RTC ruled that prescription already set in, therefore acquitted petitioner on that groundThe office of the Solicitor General fled a petition for certiorari in the court of appeals assailing thedecision of the RTC ( acted in grave abuse of discretion when it downgraded petitioners offense)----- the CAfound that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion, therefore CA reinstated the MeTC decisionPetitioner appealed in the Supreme Court in the contention that CA erred in taking cognizance of thepetition for certiorari inasmuch as the OSG raised errors of judgment but failed to prove that the RTCcommitted grave abuse of discretion. Thus, double jeopardy attached when RTC acquitted him.ISSUE:Whether or not the petitioner violated article 26 when he announced that the Private respondent is adangerous manRuled:The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could have been guilty of violation of article 26 of thecivil code if it was raised in the case. Since the petitioner is an educator, he is supposed to be a role model for

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->