Jefte carl herbilla

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of Mandaluyong

MARIMAR DELA CRUZ,

Complainant,
I.S. NO: ________________

-versus- FOR: GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION

ROSALINDA RAMOS, Under Article 353 in relation to Article
Respondent. 358, Revised Penal Code

x-------------------------------------------x

R E S O LUTIO N

The respondent MARIMAR DELA CRUZ were charged of the crime of

GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION in a complaint filed by MARIMAR DELA CRUZ.

In support of his complaint, the herein complainant attached the following

documents;

1. Complaint affidavit of Marimar Dela Cruz;

2. Counter Affidavit of Rosalinda Ramos
3. Affidavit of Joey Revilla
4. Affidavit of Juan Delacruz

Statement of Facts

Based on the investigation, the facts of the case are stated hereunder:

That on On December 23, 2015 at around 1pm, in the City of

Mandaluyong, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this court, the said
accused, while the complainant was delivering her speech for all the
City Hall employees who were gathered inside the session hall of the
Mandaluyong City Hall, unlawfully, maliciously and feloniously
shouted in a serious and insulting manner the following:

”HAY GRABE!!! ANG KAPAL NG MUKHA, ANAK NG BUWAYA!

KALA MO KUNG SINONG MAGALING NA MAYOR, AKALA
MO SINONG MATINO AT TAPAT SA MGA TAO, SUPER
CORRUPT NAMAN! AS IN!! TIGNAN MO ANG ITSURA,
CORRUPT NA CORRUPT, BOOO! ALIS NA! MAGNANAKAW
KA!! MAGNANAKAW!”
 (“That thick-faced person! Pretending to be a good Mayor, pretending
to be honest to her people, but in truth, she is super corrupt, As in!
Look at her, she looks so corrupt! Booo! Get out, You thief!!”).

Such statement was uttered few times and was heard by all the City
Hall employees inside the session hall.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Analyses/Findings and Recommendations

Article 353 in relation to Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code specifically
state as follows:

“Article 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is a public and

malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect,
real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status
or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit,
or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.

“ART. 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be punished

by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión
correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious
and insulting nature; otherwise, the penalty shall be
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

In Amelia Larobis vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines 1, the
accused was held to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of grave oral
defamation. The Court of Appeals and two trial courts found that petitioner had
shouted, within hearing distance of several persons, the following words calculated
to humiliate and to cast aspersion on the complainant:

LIMBONGAN, MARO NGA MAGTUTUDLO, PATAY GUTOM,

TIGULANG GIUBAN NA, BOGOK, HUGAWAN, IPASALBIDS KA
NAKO NI DODONG AMORA. ("You are a cheat, a dishonest teacher, you
are dead hungry, an old person with gray hair, dull, dirty, I will have you
salvage(d) by Dodong Amora.") (Rollo, pp. 16 & 18)

As reiterated in the case of Noel Villanueva vs. People of the Philippines 2

and Yolanda Castro. There is grave slander when it is of a serious and insulting
nature. The gravity of the oral defamation depends not only upon the expressions
used, but also on the personal relations of the accused and the offended party, and
the circumstances surrounding the case. Indeed, it is a doctrine of ancient
respectability that defamatory words will fall under one or the other, depending not
only upon their sense, grammatical significance, and accepted ordinary meaning
1
G.R. No. 104189. March 30, 1993

2
G.R. No. 160351. April 10, 2006
judging them separately, but also upon the special circumstances of the case,
antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender, which
might tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time.

The following facts and circumstances based on the personal knowledge of

the witnesses show that there was probable cause to believe that respondent
Rosalinda Ramos had just committed a crime, viz.:

1. Marimar Dela Cruz's statement which Revilla overheard the utterances

made by respondent.

2. Revilla's statements proving such defamatory utterances was made.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

recommended that an information for the crime of GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION
under Article 353 in relation to Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code be filed
against the respondent ROSALINDA RAMOS.

Mandaluyong City, Manila.

APPROVED BY:

ALDEN RICHARD DE LEON

Chief City Prosecutor