People of the Philippines v. Maria Norma Hernandez, et al.

CA-G.R. No. 22553-R

April 14, 1959

Crime Charged: Serious slander by deed

Facts:

The complainant, Viviencio Lascano (19 yrs. old), courted appellant Norma. After months of courtship,
the appellant finally accepted the complainant. Then, they immediately talked about marriage –
Vivencio told his parents about their marriage. Subsequently, the complainant’s parents together with
his 12 aunts (bringing along 30 chickens and three goats), went to Norma’s house to ask for her hand in
marriage. The parents of both parties agreed to the marriage. They set the marriage to be held at the
Roman Catholic Church of Taal, Batangas and the parents of Vivencio agreed that they would buy Norma
a wedding dress, two vestidos, and a pair of shoes and to advance 20 pesos for fetching the sponsors in
the wedding and to repair the roof of the uncle of the appellant.

Vivencio, together with their parents, applied for marriage and a corresponding marriage license was
issued. After they went to the parish priest of Taal, Batangas to arrange the proclamation of the coming
marriage of the two.

As a preparation of the marriage and in observance of their tradition, the parents of the complainant
cleaned the yard of the appellant’s house. They even constructed a temporary shed where the wedding
feast was to be held and put up a temporary stove. They slaughtered goats, pigs, and chicken and served
food to guests.

However, while said party or celebration was going on, the appellant could not be found. They waited
until midnight but still, she never showed up causing them great shame and humiliation.

The Appellant argued that she did not love Vivencio and was only persuaded by her parents and uncle.
As the date of the marriage was approaching, she felt a sense of torture because she was not honestly in
love with Vivecencion. Then, without telling her parents she hid in Mindoro and stayed with her cousin
at Calapat until she was fetched by her cousin and was put under arrest in Taal, Batangas.

CFI Ruling: Convicted appellant

ISSUE:

Whether or not appellee is guilty of the crime of Serious Slander by Deed.

Ruling:

No, A party to an agreement to marry who backs out cannot be held liable for the crime of slander by
deed, for then that would be an inherent way of compelling said party to go into a marriage without his
or her free consent, and this would contravene the principle in law that what could not be done directly
could not be done indirectly; and said the party has the right to avoid to himself or herself the evil of
going through a loveless marriage pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

Judgment reversed. RPC.