Case Digest 2

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is liable for grave threats, grave oral defamation and perjury.

Authority and Conclusion:

For the first Issue:

For the second issue:

Based on jurisprudence, as cited as well on the case Villanueva vs. People of the Philippines,
GR 160351, it provides for the factors to consider on deciding the graveness of oral
defamation;

(1) upon the expressions used;

(2) on the personal relations of the accused and the offended party, and;

(3) the circumstances surrounding the case.

And for the case to prosper, the following elements must be satisfied;

1. There is an imputation of a crime, vice, defect, act, omission, condition, status or

circumstance.

2. The imputation is made publicly.

3. The imputation must be made maliciously.

4. The imputation is directed against a natural or juridical person or one who is dead.

5. The imputation tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person or tends to

blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Guided by the foregoing precedents, we find petitioner guilty only of slight oral
defamation because of the attendant circumstances in the case at bar.

Lest we be misconstrued, the Court does not condone the vilification or use of
scurrilous language on the part of petitioner, but following the rule that all possible
circumstances favorable to the accused must be taken in his favor, it is our considered view
that the slander committed by petitioner can be characterized as slight slander following the
doctrine that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the
part of the offended party, constitutes only a light felony. 1[31]

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 of livelihood.2[20]

There is grave slander when it is of a serious and insulting nature. The gravity of the oral
defamation depends not only (1) upon the expressions used, but also (2) on the personal
relations of the accused and the offended party, and (3) the circumstances surrounding the
case.3[21] 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 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. 4[22]

Slander by deed is a crime against honor, which is committed by performing any act, which
casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person. The elements are (1) that the
offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor, (2) that such act is
performed in the presence of other person or persons, and (3) that such act casts dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon the offended party. Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes
slander by deed of a serious nature or not, depends on the social standing of the offended
party, the circumstances under which the act was committed, the occasion, etc. 5[32] It is
libel committed by actions rather than words. The most common examples are slapping
someone or spitting on his/her face in front of the public market, in full view of a crowd, thus
casting dishonor, discredit, and contempt upon the person of another.

G.R. No. 104189 March 30, 1993

AMELIA LAROBIS, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation, depends not only upon
the sense and grammatical meaning of the utterances but also upon the special
circumstances of the case, like the social standing or the advanced age of the offended

5
party. (Victorio v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 645 [1989]; Balite v. People, 18 SCRA 280
[1966])

Elements that qualify the oral defamation to the graver offense are extant. Petitioner
disregarded the respect due to the age and status of the complainant, who was 61 years old
and has been a public school teacher for the past 32 years.

The offense, having been qualified to grave oral defamation by the aforementioned special
circumstances, cannot be reduced to simple oral defamation by the claim that the
slanderous words were said in the heat of anger. Besides, the slanderous words were uttered
with evident intent, using the language of Balite v. People (18 SCRA 280) to "strike deep into
the character of the victim."