People of the Philippines vs Maria Norma Hernandez, Mariano Hernandez and Ramona Martinez

Doctrine:
Malice, one of the essential requisites of slander hasn’t been proven. There is no malice in the act of the
appellant changing her mind. She was merely exercising her right not to give her consent to the marriage after
mature consideration. Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless marriage.
(Art. 11 par.4, RPC).

Facts:
Vivencio Lascano, 19 y/o, started courting appellant, Maria Norma Hernandez and after months of
courtship, appellant finally accepted Vivencio. On the same date, she asked him to bring his parents over her
home so that they could talk about their marriage.

When Vivencio and his parents went to her house, they brought chickens and goats and they agreed to
buy a wedding dress, 2 vestidas, shoes, P20 for the sponsors and to repair the uncle’s roof.

While the celebration was going on, appellant was nowhere to be found. Vivencio and his parents waited
but she never showed up thus causing them great shame and humiliation.

Norma Hernandez averred that Vivencio was really courting her but that she wasn’t really in love with
him. Her parents tried to persuade her to accept the proposal and that she only accepted it out of obedience to
her parents and the uncle’s insistence.

Before Vivencio’s parents came to their home, she already counselled them not to bring the chickens and
that they should not regret whatever may happen later.

Appellant said she felt torture because she wasn’t honestly in love with Vivencio and so she decided to
leave home as last recourse to prevent the marriage.

RTC convicted her of serious slander by deed because she purposely and deliberately fled to prevent
celebration of marriage. Thus, she appealed.

Issue:

Whether or not appellant is liable of slander by deed.

Ruling:
No.

Malice, one of the essential requisites of slander hasn’t been proven. There is no malice in the act of the
appellant changing her mind. She was merely exercising her right not to give her consent to the marriage after
mature consideration.

Furthermore, there were no strained relations existing between the complainant and appellant before the
incident. There always existed good relations between them for they were neighbours so it cannot be sustained
that appellant was motivated by spite or ill-will in deliberately frustrating the marriage.

Appellant has the privilege to reconsider her previous commitment to marry and it would be utterly
inconsistent to convict her for slander by deed simply because she desisted in continuing with the marriage. If she
would be liable then that would be tantamount to compelling her to go into a marriage without her free consent.

Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless marriage. (Art. 11 par.4,
RPC).