REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
CITY OF BAGUIO

CASSANDRA N. SANTOS
Complainant,

-versus- FOR: GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION

Article 353 in relation to Article 358,
CHESKA L. BAUTISTA Revised Penal Code
Respondent.

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

RESOLUTION

The respondent CHESKA L. BAUTISTA was charged of the

crime of GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION in a complaint filed by
CASSANDRA E. SANTOS.

In support of his complaint, the herein complainant attached the

following documents;

1. Affidavit of Abe Dela Cruz

2. Affidavit of Michelle N. Espique

Statement of Facts

Based on the investigation, the facts of the case are stated

hereunder:

That on December 20, 2019 at around 3pm, in the City of

Baguio, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this court, the said
accused, while the complainant was heading home at No. 99 Upper
Malvar Street, Trancoville, Baguio City, unlawfully, maliciously and
feloniously shouted in a serious and insulting manner the following:
“PUTA KA CASSANDRA! INAGAW MO ASAWA KO, PALAGI
KAYONG NAGLALANDIAN SA ILALIM NG BAHAY NAMIN”, (“You
are a whore! You stole my husband! You are always flirting with each
other under our house”). Such statement was uttered a lot of times
and was heard by her 8-year old son, her Aunt, and the neighbors
within the area.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

In the complaint affidavit of CASSANDRA N. SANTOS, the

complainant, she stated that, they were heading home from school
when Cheska L. Bautista, the accused, shouted them with her
defamatory statements, which is supported by the affidavit of Michelle
N. Espique, who stated that, while on their way home, Cheska N.
Santos, the accused, immediately approached them and suddenly
uttered the defamatory statements to Cassandra N. Santos. The
defamatory utterances were repeated loudly which draws the
attention of the people within the area where the incident happened,
witnessed the incident, looking at Cassandra E. Santos, the
complainant, and started whispering. This incident is supported by
the affidavit of Abe Dela Cruz, who is present in the area at the time
of the incident, whose presence proves that the defamatory
utterances were really made by Cheska L. Bautista, the accused. In
the complaint-affidavit of the complainant, she stated that she
received negative responses from her neighbors, co-employees and
relatives after the defamatory statements were uttered upon her by
Cheska L. Bautista, the accused.

In the counter-affidavit of Cheska L. Bautista, the accused,

denied the allegation that the statement uttered against Cassandra N.
Santos, the complainant, had the object of destroying her reputation
and discrediting and ridiculing her as an individual before the bar of
public opinion and contempt. That in truth, Cassandra N. Santos, the
accused, is really fooling around with her husband. This statement is
supported by the statement of Myrna Peyra. Cheska L. Bautista, the
accused, also stated in her counter-affidavit that, the imputation
against Cassandra N. Santos could not cause her dishonor, discredit,
or contempt for there has been contempt against her dishonorable
way of life that caused her discredit in the community, which is
supported by the statement of Bong O. Gomez, the Barangay Tanod,
together with the Barangay Complaint filed sometime in 2018 against
Cassandra N. Santos. The Barangay Complaint attached supporting
the counter-affidavit of Cheska L. Bautista, involves a complaint for
alleged violating the rights of the complainants concerned in the
Barangay Complaint by flirting the husband of Emma L. Ayo, the
complainant in the Barangay Complaint.

Analysis/Findings and Recommendations

Article 353 in relation to Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code

specifically state as follows:

“Article 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is a public and

malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.

“ART. 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be punished by

arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión 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.

In De Leon vs. People, the Court thoroughly discussed the

nature of 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 tend 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.

As discussed in Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation and

Ruthuer Batuigas vs. Victor Domingo and People of the Philippines,
An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the
commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance
which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which
tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
 In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words
used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their
plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be
understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they
were used and understood in another sense. Moreover, a charge is
sufficient if words are calculated to induce the hearer to suppose and
understand that the person or persons against whom they were
uttered guilty of certain offenses or are sufficient to impeach the
honesty, virtue or reputation or to hold the persons or persons up to
public ridicule.

Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to

duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and
implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad
faith or bad motive. It is the essence of the crime of libel.

As reiterated in the case of Noel Villanueva vs. People of the

Philippines and Yolanda Castro. There is grave slander when it is of a
serious and insulting nature. The gravity of the oral defamation
depends not only upon the expressions used, but also on the
personal relations of the accused and the offended party, and the
circumstances surrounding the case. 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.
The following facts and circumstances based on the personal
knowledge of the witnesses show that there was probable cause to
believe that respondent Cheska L. Bautista has committed a crime,
viz:

1. The statements of Abe Dela Cruz proving that such

defamatory utterances were made.

2. The presence of Michelle N. Espique at the time the

defamatory utterances were made and clearly heard the defamatory
utterances made.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most

respectfully recommended that information for the crime of GRAVE
ORAL DEFAMATION under Article 353 in relation to Article 358 of
the Revised Penal Code be filed against the respondent CHESKA L.
BAUTISTA.
Baguio City, Benguet.