1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SURIGAO CITY

Third DIVISION

MATET B. SEGUERRA,

Accused-Appellant,

- versus GR. No. 1567

For: Oral Defamation

MEMBERS:

Alaba, M.

Gabon, E.

Morales, L.

AIZA A. DELEON,

Plaintiff-Appellee.

x-------------------------------------x

Promulgated:

MAY 7, 2016

DECISION

ALABA, M.:
2

This is an appeal from the Decision of the Municipal

Trial Court of Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, Branch 1, in

Criminal Case No. 322 convicting appellant Matet B.

Seguerra of the crime of Grave Oral Defamation, imposing

upon her the sentences to suffer the penalty of six (6)

months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) month

and one (1) day, and to pay moral damages in the amount

of P5, 000.00 and compensatory damages in the amount of

P 2,000.00 and to pay the costs.

Records show that Matet B. Seguerra was charged with

Grave Oral Defamation in the Information filed before the

MTC, docketed as Criminal Case No. 322, the accusatory

portion of which reads:

That on February 1, 2015 at around

10am accused did then and allegedly

openly, publicly and maliciously uttering

the following insulting words and

statements: UYAGAN KAW!

MANGINGILOG KAW NAN BANA! HIBAYO

KAW NA PAMILYADO SI ARTHUR

TAGPATULAN MO PA. KABAGA NIMO NA

WAYONG, MAESTRA MAN KAW TANA,

UYAGAN MAN BAJA KAW. MINYO BAJA

AN IMO TIRADA! SUS, MURA KAW NAN

SANTA SA ATUBANGAN NAN IMO MGA

ESTUDYANTE PERO PAG HIKATAPARAN

KAW NAN AKO BANA IMPAKTA MAN

BAJA KAW! WAYAY IJO MGA KASIPOG

MANGLANDIAN KAMO SA FACULTY

ROOM! Which if translated in English

language will mean: You are a whore!

You stole my husband. Shame on you!

You are a teacher but you are a whore!

You flirted with a married man. You

acted like a saint in front of your

students but when my husband is beside

you are a bitch! Were you not ashamed,

you are flirting inside the faculty room

and other words of similar imports and

as result said defamatory utterance and

expressions caused mental anguish,

serious anxiety, social humiliation, and

besmirched reputation on thereby giving

rise to a moral damage in the amount of

P10,000.00

CONTRARY TO LAW
4

The appellant, with the assistance of counsel,

pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution presented two witnesses namely

Carmin Gomez and Mila Calagos Their combined

testimonies narrated that Deleon, filed a complaint for

Grave Oral Defamation against Seguerra before the

Municipal Trial Court docketed as Criminal Case No. 322.

On February 1, 2015, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously

publicly proffer against the latter scandalous words such

as UYAGAN KAW! MANGINGILOG KAW NAN BANA!

HIBAYO KAW NA PAMILYADO SI ARTHURS TAGPATULAN

MO PA.KABAGA NIMO NA WAYONG MAESTRA MAN KAW

TANA.MINYO MAN BAJA IMO TIRADA! IMPAKTA MAN BAJA

KAW! WAYAY IJO MGA KASIPOG MAGLANDIAN KAMO SA

FACULTY ROOM and other words and expressions of

similar import, thereby bringing Aiza A. Deleon into public

contempt, discredit and ridicule.

That the statement was uttered by Matet B. Seguerra

on February 1, 2015 publicly and clearly prompted not by

sense of moral duty but by personal ill-will, spite and/or

malice with the object of destroying the Plaintiffs

reputation and discrediting and ridiculing her as an

individual before the bar of public opinion and contempt;

and

The ill-effects of the malicious utterances are shown

by the negative responses that the Plaintiff received from

her co-teachers and students who were in the school

canteen that time, expressing belief in respondents

baseless allegations as shameful, heinous and

unequivocally barbaric all to my damage and prejudice;

That the word uttered by Seguerra in the presence of

several persons in the canteen premises caused Deleon

embarrassment, subsequently suffered sleepless nights,

wounded feeling, moral and social embarrassment.

THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT

Matet B. Seguerra testified as follows: She

acknowledges that on February 1, 2015, she went to

Bacuag National High School posed for confirmation if

rumors are true about her husband and plaintiffs

relationship.
6

On cross examination, she testified that she did not

want to make a scene especially that there were several

students and teachers present at the premises. That the

words uttered were done in the height of resentment or

anger and pronouncement of the fact concerning illicit

relationship with her husband and there was indeed effort

being exerted just to have peaceful conversation with the

plaintiff before the utterances.

She also asserts that it is the plaintiff who shouted at

her first and remarked WAYAY AKO PANAHON SA MGA

ISKANDALOSA which referring her for being scandalous.

That the plaintiff instead undermined her professional

repute when she vehemently shut the door of the canteen

despite the knowledge that it is not her private property.

Thus, just like other aggrieved party and after having been

provoked normal reaction would be to express feeling of

resentment.

Defendant further stated that prior to the utterances

she was composed yet with her a clean intention of asking

for a confirmation if circulated rumors about her husband

and the plaintiff relationship is true.

Another witness, Mila Calagos, one of the vendors in

the School Canteen, testified that on February 1, 2015 at

about 10:00 oclock in the morning, she heard Seguerra

greeted Deleon but afterwards Deleon shut the door of the

canteen and then badmouthed by uttering the words

Wayay ako panahon sa mga iskandalosa!

THE RULING OF THE MTC

In its Decision, dated September 11, 2015, the MTC

found Seguerra guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Grave

Oral Defamation. The Trial Court considered Seguerras

actuation on the day of the incident was spontaneous.

The MTC found Seguerras defense as only an

afterthought and self-serving as he merely filed the

counter-charges against Deleon after he had received the

subpoena from the OCP. The dispositive portion of the MTC

decision reads:

WHEREFORE, with the foregoing, the Court

finds the accused Matet B. Seguerra guilty

beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of

Grave Oral defamation and she is hereby

sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6)

months and one (1) day to two (2) years and

four (4) month and one (1) day, and to pay

moral damages in the amount of P5, 000.00

and compensatory damages in the amount

of P 2,000.00 and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.
8

The verdict being unacceptable to her, Seguerra filed

her Notice of Appeal dated October 5, 2015.

On November 1, 2015, the RTC issued the Order

directing Seguerra to file her appeal memorandum, which

was granted by RTC in its Order, dated November 30, 2015.

On December 3, 2015, Seguerra filed his appeal

memorandum and argued, among others, that the MTC

decision lacked the necessary constitutional and

procedural requirements of a valid decision.

THE PRESENT APPEAL

The accused, now the appellant, assails the decision

of the trial court contending that:

1. The prosecutions evidence is insufficient to

prove the guilt of the accused-appellant

beyond reasonable doubt;

2. The Trial court erred in its decision to

charge the accused-appellant of Grave Oral

Defamation under Article 358 of the

Revised Penal Code.

The prosecutions evidence is insufficient to prove the

guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable

doubt;

The appellant contents that the prosecution failed to

prove that there was proof beyond reasonable doubt. The

lower court should have decided the case on the basis of

the testimonies of the witness for the defense. Also the

conviction was based simply on Seguerras conduct and

utterances and not on the merits of the case.

The appellant contends also that she has not shown

any criminal intent in uttering those words. It further

asserts that the intent on her part to diminish the esteem

or to excite adverse, unpleasant feelings or opinion of

others against her was lacking as her testimony was made

without malice.

The crime committed is only

Slight Oral Defamation

Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed by oral

(spoken) means, instead of in writing. It is defined as the

speaking of base and defamatory words which tends to

prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business

or means of livelihood. The elements of oral defamation are:

(1) there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or

defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or

circumstances; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) and

maliciously; (5) directed to a natural or juridical person, or

one who is dead; (6) which tends to cause dishonor,

discredit or contempt of the person defamed. Oral

defamation may either be simple or grave. It becomes grave

when it is of a serious and insulting nature.

To determine whether a statement whether a

statement is defamatory, the words used in the statement

must be construed in their entirely and should be taken in

their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they would

naturally be understood by person reading them, unless it

appears that they were used and understood in another

sense. It must be stressed that words which are merely

insulting do not constitute a basis for an action for

defamation in the absence of allegation for special

damages.

In this case, the Court agrees that the words uttered

by Seguerra were defamatory in nature. It is however, of

the view that the same only constituted simple oral

defamation.

Whether the offense committed is serious or slight

defamation, depends not only upon the sense and

grammatical meaning of the utterances but also upon the

special circumstances of the case, like (1) the expression

used; (2) the personal relations of the accuses and the

offended party; and (3) the circumstances of the case, the

antecedents or relationship between the offended party and

the offender, which may tend to prove the intention of the

offender at the time. In particular, it is a rule that uttering

defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some

provocation on the part of the offended party constitute

only a light felony

In some cases, the Court has declared that the

defamatory utterances were not grave on the basis of the

peculiar situations obtaining.

In the case of People v, Arcand, a priest called the

offended party a gangster in the middle of the sermon. The

Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for sight

slander as there was no imputation of a crime, a vice or

immorality. In Pader v. People, the Court ruled that the

crime committed was only slight oral defamation as it

considered the expression; putang ina mo as expression

to convey anger or displeasure.

Considering the factual backdrop of this case, the

Court is convinced that the crime committed by Seguerra

was only Slight oral defamation for the following reasons:

First, as to the relationship of the parties, they were

acquainted with each other as the husband of the

defendant and the plaintiff was co-teachers.

Second, the utterance made by Seguerra was bu a

mere product of emotional outburst, kept inside her system

and unleashed during their encounter.

Third, such words taken as a whole were not uttered

with evident to strike deep into the character of Deleon as

the animosity between the parties should have been

considered. There was no intention to ridicule or humiliate

Aiza A. Deleon because Seguerras utterance could simply

be construed as her expression of dismay towards the

plaintiff.

To reiterate, their altercation and Seguerras

subsequent defamation were not grave on the basis of the

peculiar situations obtaining.

Accordingly, Seguerra should be meted out only the

penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding P200.00

pesos, for committing slight oral defamation as prescribed

under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

May 7, 2016 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court,

Branch 1, Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, is hereby MODIFIED

to read as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding Matet B. Seguerra

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

crime of Slight Oral Defamation, the Court

hereby sentences her to pay a fine of

P200.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in

case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Court

Administrator for possible administrative charges.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LUZ ELIMANCO-ALABA

EXECUTIVE JUDGE
14

WE CONCUR:

EDNA GABON LIEZEL MORALES

Acting Judge Prosecutor

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the Article VIII, Section 13 of the

Constitution, and the Divisions Chairperson Attestation, it

is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above

decision were reached in consultation before the case was

assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts

Division.

ENCARNACIO CONGAYO

Presiding Justice