14. Villanueva v.

People
G.R. No. 160351 | 10 April 2006 | Chico-Nazario, J.
Aggy | Topic: E. (Penalties) SC Circular 08-2008; Simple Slander

Doctrine:
The uttering of defamatory words in heat of anger with some provocation on the part of the offended party
only constitutes a slight oral defamation.

REYES BOOK on the SC Circular: In consideration of the peculiar circumstances of each case, the judge,
in his sound discretion, may determine whether the imposition of a fine alone (rather than imprisonment)
would best serve the interest of justice.

Facts:
Accused: Noel Villanueva (member of Municipal Council of Concepcion, Tarlac)
Offended Party: Yolanda C. Castro (Municipal Vice Mayor of Concepcion, Tarlac)

1. 2 utility men went to the Vice Mayor’s Office to submit the application of Villanueva (accused) for
monetized leave. This was not immediately attended by Castro (offended).
2. Villanueva went to the Vice Mayor’s Office to have his application for monetized leave signed. But
Castro disregarded him.
3. Castro got the monetized leave and filed it in her “in and out” files, but while she was doing this, the
paper accidentally fell on the floor.
a. While Castro was about to pick it up, Villanueva went to her and swung a yellow pad at her
face. Villanueva also uttered defamatory words:
i. “I will lift you from there and I will throw you out of the window and I don't care if I will
go to jail”
ii. “You are pretending to be clean and honest yet you are not clean and honest, you
are corrupt. You are like red apple, you are worm infested inside and extremely dirty”
b. Villanueva, then, went out of the office but before he left he point a dirty finger at Castro; and
Castro threw a coke bottle towards him.
c. Incident was witnessed by so many people numbering about 20-30 who were then at the
municipal hall.
d. 2 information were filed against Villanueva: (1) grave oral defamation for the defamatory
words; (2) serious slander by deed for the pointing of the dirty finger
i. MCTC found petitioner guilty, imposed a penalty of imprisonment, and an award of
moral damages
ii. RTC affirmed but modified the penalty, lowering the sentence, increasing the moral
damages from P50k to P100k, and adding exemplary damages
iii. CA affirmed but further modified the penalty deleting the exemplary damages
because it noted that Castro was not without fault as she unjustly refused
Villanueva’s application—one which he is legally entitled to.

Issue/Holding:
1. W/N petitioner should be convicted of grave oral defamation? – NO. Only slight oral defamation.
a. Oral defamation (slander) is libel committed by oral means—speaking of bease and
defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business
or means of livelihood.
b. GRAVE slander is when it is of a serious and insulting nature. The gravity depends on:
i. Expressions used
ii. Personal relations of the accused and the offended party
iii. Circumstances surrounding the case
 iv. Social standing and position of the offended party
c. SC held that in light of the circumstances of the case, they recognize the fact that Castro
was indeed a lady that demanded respect especially since she is a Vice-Mayor.
i. However, they also noted the fact that the words uttered by Villanueva was done in
the heat of anger which was provoked by Castro when she refused, without just
cause, to approve Villanueva’s application for the monetization of accrued leave
credits.
ii. It has been SC’s trend in its decisions that such act constitutes only of a slight oral
defamation following the doctrine that uttering defamatory words in heat of anger
with some provocation on the part of the offended party.
d. Further, SC also opted to impose only a fine as penalty.
e. (REYES: the SC Circular 08-2008 in the topic was issued by SC to provide a guideline in
the preference in the imposition of penalties in libel cases. So, in the sound discretion of the
court, if they think it wise to impose only a fine in consideration of the attending
circumstances of the case, then they should impose only a fine)

2. W/N petitioner should be convicted of serious slander by deed? – NO. Only simple slander by
deed.
a. Slander by deed is committed by performing any act which casts dishonor, discredit, or
contempt upon another person. Elements of the crime are:
i. Offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor
ii. Such act is performed in the presence of other person/s
iii. Such act casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon the offended party.
b. SC finds that Villanueva is guilty only of simple slander by deed and also opted to impose
only a fine.
c. (SC basically repeated their reasoning here in saying that yes the vice mayor deserved
respect given her office, but then she was not without fault as her unjust refusal of the
application of Villanueva, ALSO the court noted that she even threw a coke bottle at him
HAHA)
d. SC also noted that the pointing of a dirty finger which ordinarily connotes “Fuck You” was a
common enough expression that is often employed not to slander but to express anger or
displeasure.
OTHER STUFF:
- SC also deleted the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees since like they said
Castro was not without fault due to her provocation of refusing Villanueva’s application.

Ruling:
1. Guilty of slight oral defamation (slander), a penalty of fine of P200 with subsidiary imprisonment
2. Guilty of simple slander by deed, a penalty of fine of P200 with subsidiary imprisonment
3. Moral damages and attorney’s fees are DELETED

Relevant Provisions: