MURAO, JOSE PEPITO G.

III
17-4085
Case No. 225

VICTORIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. Nos. L-32836-37 May 3, 1989
Bidin, J.;

Facts:
Petitioner Exequiel Victorio hired Atty. Vivencio Ruiz, a one-time Justice of
Peace, professor, and president of the Nueva Ecija Bar Association for certain civil cases
from 1953 to 1963. Petitioner then terminated the services of Atty. Ruiz in favor of Atty.
Castillo who was once a Municipal judge in Nueva Ecija, and then petitioner Victorio
filed disbarment proceedings against Atty. Ruiz and an administrative case against a
certain Judge Guiang. In the administrative case against Judge Guiang where Atty. Ruiz
sat as the former’s counsel, Atty. Castillo presented an urgent motion to disqualify the
sitting Judge Avancena who, admonished Atty. Castillo. Atty. Ruiz moved that Atty.
Castillo be cited for contempt. When the hearing finished, Petitioner Victorio and his son
Daniel were walking down the corridor and bashed Atty. Ruiz for being greedy and
accusing him of estafa. Exequiel and Daniel cursed at Atty. Ruiz and Exequiel even said
that he would shoot Atty. Ruiz. A policeman and one of the witnesses for the prosecution
of Judge Guiang overheard their conversation. Thus, Daniel and Exequiel were charged
with the crime of Serious Oral Defamation or Slander for ridiculing Atty. Ruiz in the
presence of many persons. The trial court convicted the Victorios of Serious Oral
Defamation and the Court of Appeals affirmed their conviction.

Issue:
1. Whether the words uttered by the Victorios were tantamount to Slander or just
Slight Oral Defamation as their counsel suggests?

Ruling: The Victorios are guilty of Slander. Jurisprudents dictate that imputation of a
crime against another, in public, constitutes slander. Even the imputation of loose morals
or not being chaste was held to be slander and not slight oral defamation. Petition is
DENIED.