University of the Philippines College of Law

JABF D2022

Case Name PEOPLE v. NORMA HERNANDEZ

Topic Justifying Circumstances (Avoidance of a Greater Evil)
Case No. | Date 55 OG 846 (1959)
Ponente Gutierrez, J (Court of Appeals)
Norma Hernndez was convicted by the CFI Batangas for slander by deed after she went back on her
promise to marry Vivencio Lascano after Lascano already gave chickens, goats, dresses and other
considerations to Hernandez’s family.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and said that malice, an essential requisite of slander, was
Case Summary not proven. Also, the CA held that the courts cannot compel Hernandez to marry Vivencio because
consent must be freely given in entering a marriage.

Also, CA held that Hernandez has the right to avoid the evil of going through a loveless marriage
pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

Art. 11 Par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code:

Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
(4) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present:
Doctrine

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

RELEVANT FACTS
● After Vivencio Lascano (19 years old) spent months of courting Maria Norma Hernandez, the latter finally
accepted and asked Lascano to bring his parents over to Hernandez’s house to talk about their marriage. On the
same date, she asked him to bring his parents over her home so that they could talk about their marriage.

● When Vivencio, his parents and his twelve aunts went to her house, they brought 30 chickens and 3 goats and
they agreed to buy a wedding dress, 2 vestidas, shoes, P20 for the sponsors and to repair the uncle’s roof. The
wedding dress was left in the doorstep because there was no one in the Hernandez residence when Vivencio
delivered the dress.

● On March 18 they allegedly constructed a temporary shed where the wedding feast was to be held wherein they
put up a temporary stove. They slaughtered goats, pigs and chickens and they served around 90 guests.

● On the morning of March 19, they served around 70 guests because Vivencio’s parents invited the appellant’s
friends and relatives. While said party or celebration was going on, Hernandez could be found nowhere. Vivencio
and his parents still waited for her until twelve midnight of March 19 but appellant never showed up thus causing
them great shame and humiliation.

● Norma Hernandez averred that Lascano indeed courted her but that she wasn’t really in love with him. But her
parents tried to persuade her to accept the proposal so she only accepted it out of obedience to her parents and
the uncle’s insistence.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
JABF D2022

● 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 if they insisted.

● Appellant said she felt tortured because she wasn’t honestly in love with Vivencio and so she decided to leave
home as a last recourse to prevent the marriage. She went to Mindoro where she stayed until her cousin fetched
her as she was ordered arrested for slander by deed. Hernandez averred that she never got the wedding dress
that Vivencio promised.

● Appellant’s parents also corroborated her testimony and denied that Vivencio constructed a shed for the
celebration of the marriage .

● CFI Batangas convicted her (but acquitted her parents) of serious slander by deed because she purposely and
deliberately fled to prevent celebration of marriage. Thus, she appealed to the Court of Appeals.

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N Hernandez should No. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision.
be judged guilty of the A party to an agreement to marry who backs out cannot be held liable for the crime of slander
crime of slander by by deed, for then that would be an inherent way of compelling said party to go into a marriage
deed. without his or her free consent, and this would contravene the principle in law that what could
not be done directly could not be done indirectly; and said party has the right to avoid to
himself or herself the evil of going through a loveless marriage pursuant to Article 11,
paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

Malice, one of the essential requisites of slander, has not been proven ; that in the act done by
appellant there was no malice because in changing her mind, assuming that she
was in love with complainant previous to the incident, she was merely exercising her right not
to give her consent to the marriage after mature consideration.

There were no strained relations existing between the complainant and the appellant and her
parents before the incident, on the contrary, there always existed good relations between
them being neighbors, so that it cannot be sustained that appellant was motivated by spite or
ill-will in deliberately frustrating the marriage, and there was, therefore, no malice on her part.

Since no marriage shall be solemnized unless the consent of the parties is freely given, to
penalize appellant for not continuing with the proposed marriage would make the State
practically instrumental in compelling an unwilling party to enter into a marriage, “an
institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested.

RULING
Judgment reversed.
SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES