docklud a u n

Cup ata) Republic of the Philippines

11th Judicial Reqion
MUNICIPAL TRIAL T IN CITIES
Branc
General Sanu city

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

CRIMINAL CASE N
Plaintiff,
- /arci IC-

-for
GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION
ACCused.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE NO.

Plaintiff,
- versus
-for-

SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES

Accused.
X -X

JOINT-JUDGMENT

Accused is charged with the crimes of Grave Oral Defamation

and Slight Physical Injuries under Article 358, par.1 and Article 266
of the Revised Penal Code, respectively, with the following
Informations quoted as follows:

Criminal Case No. 52108-2

That on November 5, 2013 at about 7:10 p.m. in
SM Mall of Gensan, General Santos City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, did then and there, willfully, unla
fel usly and publicly utter against complainant a
F lthe following slanderous words to wit: "Baooy!
Babuy Social Climber" (loosely translated "Pig!Pig! Social
Climber"), thereby bringing the said complainant to
public contempt, ridicule, and discredit, to her damage
and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW".

nt-Judg ment / Criminal CasesNo.52 108-2 & 52109-2

 Criminal Case No. 52109-2
That onNovember 5, 2013 at about 7:10
at SM Mal of o'clock
D.m. Gensan, General Santos City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then 7
y, unlawfully, feloniously slap and hit ere,
a E.
thereby inflicting on her "(+)
Asymmetric) left face", which Swelling
attendance of less than 8 days.
requires medical

CONTRARY TO LAW".

On October 15,2015, accused with the assistance of counsel

pleaded not guilty on both cases. Pre-trial conference was conducted
on August 4,2016 and joint-trial ensued.

The Case for the Prosecutioon

The prosecution presented private complainant on
August 16,2018. She testified that on November 5,2013 at about 7:00
o'clock in the evening, while she was walking along "Al Fresco" at SM
Mall of Gensan, she saw the accused drinking San Miguel Lights with
another person; that suddenly accused yelled at her saying "Baboy,
Baboy, Social Climber", (loosely translated Pig! Pig! Social Climber);
that immediately she turned on the video of her phone to capture the
utterances made by the accused; that in fact she was able to capture
some of those words; thereafter accused rose from her seat and
grabbed her cellular phone and repeatedly with all her force slapped
her with the said phone hitting her at the left portion of her head; that
accused also attempted to drag her towards the circular column of the
building; that she asked the guards to retrieve her phone but the
accused was so violent that the guards could not approach the
accused; that she was escorted by the guards to the customer service
relations office of the mall to report the incident; and she also went to
the police station to blotter the incident and subjected herself for
medical examination.

On October 4,2018, the prosecution presented St. l

She testified that she's a food checker and at the same time staff of
orab a Crab restaurant near Congo Grill; that she was assigned outside
the restaurant as barker calling and inviting mall goers and passersby
to dine-in; that on November 5,2013, she noticed a woman and male
arinking beer outside the adjacent restaurant known as Congo Grill
then at around 7:00 PM, she noticed another woman holding her
while in front of Congo Grill presumably taking video of the
celignone
ageoint-Ju dgment / Criminal CasesNo.52108-2& 52109-2
 drinking woman who was at the time uttering in loud voice "Baboy,
Taba, Tabatchoy", being addressed to the woman
cellular phone; that suddenly the taking video on her
and approached the videoing woman drinking woman (accused) stood
up
latter's phone; then accused while (complainant) and grabbed the
yelling and uttering bad words,
struck the complainant for three or fourth
the yell and voice of the accused was times in her left face; that
so loud that it
of the passersby and staffs of the called the attention
restaurant;
shocked and could not utter a word; that that the complainant was
back the accused who was complainant did not fight
continuously
and briskly walked away from the scene. yelling at her with mean words

n qust 16,2018, the prosecution

le testifioA that i* he presented Dr.
persuly examinec
evening of November 5, 2013, he
da for a reported
took place at SM1 (
physical assault that
an; that his
diagnosis was
(asymmetric) on G left face which will require swelling
medical
attendance for a periud of than eight (8) days from the
infliction; that on December 10,2013, his attention was called onalleged
.

some
clerical errors in the medico legal certificate that he
issued; and he
stressed that the indicated date and time of commission which
in the medical certificate as November 6, 2013 at 7:10
appears
A.M., should be
November 05, 2013, at 7:10 P.M. and that the date and time of
examination as November 6,2013 at 11:46 P.M., should be November
5,2013 at 11:46 P.M.

Th S mber 6, 2018, the prosecution presented u

Ca He testified that sometim
a certain
' 5, 2013,
a
was examined by Dr. S a; that
due to his negligence, he made a typographical error in the entries of
her medical certificate and confirmed that the date of commission was
November 5,2013, at 7:10, P.M., instead of November 5, 2013 at 7:10
A.M.

The prosecution rested its case and filed its Formal Offer of
Exhibits on October 29,2018. All exhibits of the prosecution were
admitted in evidence.

The Case for the Accused

Accused denied the allegations against her. She testified that at
around 7:00 o'clock in the evening of November 5, 2013, she was in
the vicinity of Con i side SM Mall of Gensan together with his
friend, Tt at at about 10 to 12 meters away, she
noticed a vwuman nolding a videophone and was taking pictures or
video of her; that the woman was pointing her videophone while
smiling maliciously at her and her friend as there were no other

Pae- Joint -Judgm ent / Criminal CasesNo.52 108-2&& 52109-2

 persons hear them; that wt e said woman came
recognized her to be Mrs. C
closer, she
vho had ill feelings and
hostility towards her; that when the ainant was about just an
arms' length from her, complainant made it obvious that she was
taking video of her and was really mocking and
taunting her; at this
iuncture, it reached the point that she was provoked into grabbing
complainant's phone and stopped her from taking video; that in the
process there was a scuffle and followed by arguments; that the
Complainant, thereafter, left leaving her phone which she put on the
table; that she argued that the medical certificate of the
is falsified and fabricated; that she did not utter
complainant
defamatory words
against the complainant nor slapped her; that she was not even
talking to the complainant then and that any words that she said were
not intended for her; and she stressed that
complainant is usingg
psychological tactics to narass not only her but including her sister
and friend, which is indicative of the kind of character she has and of
her quarrelsome nature.

The only pertinent issue to be resolved herein is whether based

on the evidence presented by the prosecution, can accused be
convicted in both cases?

Hence, WE NOW RESOLVE.

Ruling of the Court

1) Criminal Case No. Grave Oral Defamation
Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 358. Slander. - Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision 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.

Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in

writing. The term oral defamation or slander as now understood, has
been defined as the speaking of base and defamatory words which
tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or
means oflivelihood.
Whether the offense commitfed is serious or slight oral
defamation, depends not only upon the sense and grammatical
meaning of the utterances but also upon the speciakcircumstances of
the case, like the social standing or the advanced age of the offended
expressions used; (2) the
party."Thegravity depends upon: (1) the
7Victoriov. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 32836-37, 31 May 1989, 173 SCRA 645, 652.

na Joint-Judgment Criminal CasesNo.52108-2 & 52109-2

 personar relations of the
accused and the offended party; and (3) the
special circumstances of the
case, the antecedents or
between the offended party and
the offender, which may tend relationship
the intention of the offender at the to prove
time. In particular, it is a
uttering defamatory words In the heat of rule that
on the part of the offended anger, with some provocation
party constitutes only a light
felony2
In this case, the
private complainant alleged that while she
walking in the vicinity of SM Mall, accused who was
was
from her, suddenly yelled at her 20 meters
saying "Baboy, Baboy, Soclal away
(Pig! Pig! Social Climber) in a very loud voice; that Climber",
turned the video of her phone to
on
capture
immediately
the utterances
she
ccused. This allegation was corroborated
who testified that she heard the accused by witness S
to the complainant and thereafter struck her shouting meai WO
on the face.

The accused denied the accusation

against her and ocontends that
she did not utter the alleged slanderous words
againstthe private
complainant. It was the private complainant who just took video on
her while smiling maliclously. When she got too close to
her, accused
grabbed complainants' phone and a scuffle followed. She further
contends that the private complainant had ill feelings and hostility
towards her and it was she who made the provocation that led to the
SCuffle.

The denial of the accused however cannot prevail over the

positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses. More so in this case
where the defense of denial is not corroborated by disinterested and
credible witnesses. In the case of People v. Dongallo the Supreme
Court said: Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot
prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution
witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a
categorical testimony which has the ring of truth on the one hand, and
a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to
prevail.
The information does not alleged that the slanderous words were
of serious and insulting nature, hence, accused can only be convicted
under the 2nd phrase of Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.

Furthermore, as to the claim for moral damages, the Court

believed that complainant is entitled to moral damages because
accused slanderous words caused her to suffer ridicule, sleepless
nights, and moral damage. It is given to ease the victim's grief and

De Leon v. People, GR. No. 212623, January 11, 2016, 779 SCRA 84.
G.R. No. 220447, March 27, 20199

Page-Joint-Judgment / Criminal CasesNo.52 108-2& 52109-2

2
 , dlla shôuld
caused and the gravity
reasonably
of the approximate the extent of the hurt
wrong done.4
B. Criminal Case No, ight Physical Injuries
Article 266 of the Revised Penal
wit: Code provides the
following to
Article 266. Slight
maltreatment. -The crime ofphysical
slight
injuries and
shall be punished: physical injuries
1. By arresto menor when the offender has
physical injuries which shall inflicted
offended party for labor from oneincapacitate the
to nine days, or
shall require medical attendance
during the same
period.
-XXXXXXXX-

Based the
above-quoted provision, the elements of the crime
on
of Slight Physical Injuries under paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code
may be deduced as: 1) the offender must have inflicted
injuries to the offended party; and 2) that the inflicted physical
injuries
incapacitated the offended party for labor or would require him medical
assistance for 1 to 9 days.

Was the prosecution sufficiently prove the elements of the crime?

The answer is YES. In this case, the elements of slight physical injuries
have been proven and duly established by the prosecution.

The private complainant testified on the incident that took place

on November 5, 2013 and she related on how the accused physically
injured her. Her allegation was supported by a medico-legal certificate
marked as Exhibit B, issued by a government physician and that her
physical injury required not more than nine days of medical attention.

Accused contention that the medical certificate was fabricated

considning that it hasoneous entries is not tenable. Dr. S
a and J a both testified that the indicaleu
uue au time of exu linatioi. appears as November 6, 2013, at
11:46 P.M., in the medical certificate should be November 05,2013, at
11:46 P.M.

This Court is convinced that the prosecution evideDce sufficientlyy

proved that accused inflicted injuries to the complainant Th Medical
Certificate was identified and affirmed by Dr the
Mariano v. People, 738 Phil. 448, 462 (2014)

age-Joint-Judgment / Criminal CasesNo.52108 -2& 52109-2

 physician who attended and examined the herein complainant. The
Medical Certificate is a public document, the same
by a public officer in the having been issued
performance of official
constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts duty; as such, it
Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of therein stated. Under
entries in public records made in the Court, "document consisting of
performance
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts of a duty by a
public
therein stated. All other
public doCuments are evidence, even against a third
which gave rise to their execution and of the date person, of the fact
of the latter."

Furthermore, accused testified that she was

complainant's act of mocking and taunting provoked by
her while taking her video
that triggered her to grab the
to a scuffle. As shown by the
complainant's videophone that resulted
following testimony found in
and 9 of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated pages 8
17,2022, as follows: February

GOvernment-Prosecuto
XXX.
Q: And Madam Witness, you mentioned that you got
provoked by said mocking and taunting and that you
reacted by grabbing the videophone from her hand,
am I correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: So, therefore, you likewise admit that there was a

physical contact hetween you and the private
Complainant, Mrs ?

A: There was a scuffle.

Q: So, is that a yes, Madam

A: Yes.

X-X-X-X-X-X-X

As gleaned from the above-quoted testimony, accused admitted

that there was a physical contact between her and the complainant.
She was provoked by the complainant's action and tried to stop her
by grabbing the videophone and scuffle followed. Thus, her admission
belies her claim that she did not inflict injuries to the herein
complainant. The testimony of the complainant appears to be more

oinudgment / Criminal CasesNo.52108-2& 52109-2

 credible as it was given in a
straightforward manner
demeanor on the witnesS stand. coupled with her

In the case of
wit:
People v.
Agcanas, the Supreme Court ruled to

"Their positive identification

of him as the assailant
over his mere denial, because
such denial, being prevailed
serving evidence, was undeserving of weight negative and self-
substantiation by clear and convincing proof. by virtue of its lack of
greater evidentiary value than the affirmativeHence, his denial had no
credible witnesses presented against him". testimonies of the

Thus, the positive assertion of witness

straightforward manner of testifying, and the seemingly naturaland her
course
of event, constituted the more plausible and
credible version against
the mere denial of the herein accused.

Lastly, as to the claim for damages, under

paragraph (1), Article
2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in a criminal
offense resulting in physical injuries. Moral damages
the mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock
compensate for
suffered by the
victim and his family as being a proximate result of the wrongful act.
Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, an award of Five Thousand Pesos
(Php 5,000.00) moral damages is appropriate for slight physical
injuries.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused

as follows:
1.) In Crimual Case No GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime u slander punishable under
Article 358, 2d phrase of the Revised Penal Code and
there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance,
she is hereby sentenced to a straight
penalty TWENTY
(20) DAYS imprisonment and to pay the private
Complainant moral damages in the amount of Twenty
Thousand Pesos (Php 20,000.00);

2.) In Criminal Case No.. No.. GUILTY beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime or Slight Physical Injuries,
punishable under Article 266, paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code and there being no mitigating nor aggravating
G. R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011,
People v. Villacorta, 672 Phil. 712, 729658 SCRA 842,
(2011).
847
Joel C. Javarez, v. People of The Phillppines-G.R. No. 248729, September 03, 2020

Oint-J udgment/ Criminal CasesNo.52108 -2 &

5 2109-2
 circumstance, she is hereby sentenced to a straight
penalty of TWENTY (20) DAYS imprisonment and to pay
moral damages in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos
(Php 5,000.00); and

3.) To pay the costs.

So ORDERED.

Given in Chamber, this 12th day of May 2022.

Presiding Juage
(

Copy Furniehnn

1.
- c e . GST

2.
Fivao
Daproza Avenue, General Santos City

Private Compiania
Block 2, Dadiangas Heights Subdv.

903A West Tower, rmppuo oiOck Exchange Center

Ortiaas Center, Pasay City

iVIUIaVu.
General Santos City