Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3.14 People vs. Norma Hernandez PDF
3.14 People vs. Norma Hernandez PDF
5,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE
1959
8465
The People
APPEAL
from a judgment
of Batangas.
Vasquez,
J.:
Together with the herein appellant Maria Norma Hernandez, her father Mariano Hernandez and mother Ramona
Martinez were charged with serious slander by deed. The
Court of First Instance of Batangas after due trial acquitted Mariano Hernandez and Ramona Martinez but convicted the herein appellant and sentenced her to pay a fine
of P300, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P200
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to
to
show the
fol-
lowing facts
The complainant, Vivencio Lascano, a lad of 19 years of
age started courting appellant Maria Norma Hernandez
sometime in August, 1954. After months of courtship apOn
pellant finally accepted Vivencio on January 6, 1955.
telling
appellant
marriage
their
about
talked
that date they
Vivencio to bring his parents to her home so that they
On January 6, 1955 Vicould talk about their marriage.
Subserequest.
vencio told his parents about appellants
s
paients
tocomplainant
quently* or on February 6, 1955
along
about
30
bringing
gether with his twelve aunts,
house
to
ask
appellants
to
went
chickens and three goats,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE
8466
On February
wedding was
October
5,
1959
OFFICIAL GAZETTE
The
they wanted Vivencio to marry her but inasmuch as appellant was cool to Vivencio they persuaded her to accept his
proposition and even sought the help of Marias uncle, Agapito Mortel, until finally appellant acceded; that on March
11, 1955 they found out that the appellant was not in their
house so they started looking for her and on the following
day they were informed that she was in Calapan, Mindoro.
Appellants father feeling very much embarrassed and
thinking that he might kill her daughter upon seeing her,
They denied that Vidid not go to Calapan to fetch her.
vencios parents went to their house on March 17 and 18 to
prepare food for the coming marriage and that a temporary
shed was constructed for the wedding feast and averred
that there was no wedding gown brought to their house.
The trial court finding that appellant purposely and deliberately absconded in order to prevent the celebration of
her marriage with the offended party after subsequent preparations had been made by the latter in connection with
the marriage; and that the steps taken by her in order to
prevent the celebration of the marriage constitute the
crime of serious slander by deed, convicted her for said
crime.
Appellant now assails such findings and judgment
as erroneous and seeks acquittal.
On its part, the appellee recommends reversal of the appealed judgment and acquittal of appellant on the ground
that appellants act in going to Mindoro with the deliberate
purpose of preventing the celebration of the marriage with
complainant because she does not love the latter does not
constitute the crime of slander by deed.
8467
OFFICIAL GAZETTE
with costs
cle
officio.
Judgment reversed.
concur.