PEOPLE v.

NORMA HERNANDEZ (1959)

By Maroon 5 Partners and Associates June 1, 2012 slander
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendant-Appellants: Maria Norma Hernandez, Mariano Hernandez (father) & Ramona
Martinez (mother)
FACTS:

Vivencio Lascano, 19 y/o, started courting appellant, Maria Norma Hernandez and after
months of courtship, appellant finally accepted Vivencio. On the same date, she asked
him to bring his parents over her home so that they could talk about their marriage.

When Vivencio and his parents went to her house, they brought chickens and goats and
they agreed to buy a wedding dress, 2 vestidas, shoes, P20 for the sponsors and to repair
the uncles roof.

While the celebration was going on, appellant was nowhere to be found. Vivencio and
his parents waited but she never showed up thus causing them great shame and
humiliation.

Norma Hernandez averred that Vivencio was really courting her but that she wasnt really
in love with him. Her parents tried to persuade her to accept the proposal and that she
only accepted it out of obedience to her parents and the uncles insistence.

Before Vivencios parents came to their home, she already counselled them not to bring
the chickens and that they should not regret whatever may happen later.

Appellant said she felt torture because she wasnt honestly in love with Vivencio and so
she decided to leave home as last recourse to prevent the marriage.

Appellants parents also corroborated her testimony.

RTC convicted her of serious slander by deed because she purposely and deliberately fled
to prevent celebration of marriage. Thus, she appealed.

HELD:

Court reversed the RTC judgment and acquitted the appellant.

RATIO:

Malice, one of the essential requisites of slander hasnt been proven. There is no malice
in the act of the appellant changing her mind. She was merely exercising her right not to
give her consent the marriage after mature consideration.

Furthermore, there were no strained relations existing between the complainant &
appellant before the incident. There always existed good relations between them for they
were neighbours so it cannot be sustained that appellant was motivated by spite or ill-will
in deliberately frustrating the marriage.

Appellant has the privilege to reconsider her previous commitment to marry and it would
be utterly inconsistent to convict her for slander by deed simply because she desisted in
continuing with the marriage. If she would be liable then that would be tantamount to
compelling her to go into a marriage without her free consent.

Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless marriage.
(Art. 11 par.4, RPC)