Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Private Private Complainant Complainant in Ina A Slander Slander by by Deed DEED Case Case
Private Private Complainant Complainant in Ina A Slander Slander by by Deed DEED Case Case
Art 358 – Slander
What is slander?
1. Simple slander
©Cases
SC:
1. The conviction for grave threats is sustained despite the deletion of the world “orally” (describing the word “threaten”) sin ce
the 3 elements of a threat existed. The demonstration led by the accused also created in the mind of the complainant the belief that
the accused will make good on his threat
2. The charge of oral defamation cannot be sustained since the utterance of “Putang ina mo” is commonly employed not for
slander but to express anger or displeasure. In the case, it should be viewed as parts of the threat voiced by the accused.
DOCTRINE: Libelous/slanderous remarks that are attendant to threats maybe considered as mere preparatory remarks culminating
in the threat and therefore are absorbed in the crime of threats and cannot be the basis for another charge for slander
People vs. Pelayo, 64 OG 1991, September 20, 1966 – Appellant Pantaleon V. Pelayo Jr. was the councilor of Davao city and hurled
accusations against Governor Alejandro Almendras of receiving protection money from Chinese gambling operators. Appellant
stated such allegations twice: once in the office of Atty. Clapano within hearing distance of 3 people and in a privileged speech he
delivered in a regular session of the City council. Appellant offers the defense of privileged communication and self-defense
S.C.
honor are 1.) Unidentified source 2.) The accused passes it on without subscribing to the truth thereof
DOCTRINE: Self-defense maybe invoked in slander but it must have the following requirements : 1.) defendant should not go
beyond explaining his side to minimize the damage of the slanderous remarks made against him 2.) defendant can only counter
with slanderous/scurrilous remarks if they are necessary for his explanation or defense
People vs. Prieto, 71 OG 3251, June 2, 1975 – The accused Florentino Prieto uttered defamatory statements against the
complainant Esterlita Vicente on at least 2 occasions. The accused told his mother-in-law’s kumare that “he dated Esterlita and
would not marry her since they already enjoy the pleasure of dating”. The accused also told Sinda Linda Plaza that Esterlita was
“badly damaged and that he would just make use of her and to have pleasure with her in the kitchen”. Sinda Linda Plaza then
conveyed the same to the complainant Erlinda.
S.C.
1. The accused blanket denial which is not based on an iota of evidence falls
DOCTRINE: The requirement of “being uttered in public” is satisfied when delivered in a manner that makes it possible for the public
to know it, even if actually only one person happens to learn of it.
People vs. Mendoza, 74 OG 5607 – The accused, Cristina Mendoza (a school teacher) was seen by the complainant, Victoria Jamelo
(also a school teacher) and several witnesses uttering the following statements in the direction of the provincial road from her
house: “You Victoria, when you were single many had sex with you because your are confident you will not bear a child. Your vagina
is odorous. You have leucorrhea. Your husband is a homosexual, uncircumcised and henpecked (HARSH!!!)” The accused claims tha t
it was the complainant who uttered such statements and not her.
S.C.
1. The witness for the prosecution were more credible. They were all volunteers and not ill-motives were proven by the defense on
their credibility
Victorio vs. CA, 111 SCRA 609, May 31, 1989 – Petitioners were heard by a policeman uttering defamatory statements which
contained the allegation that the complainant, Atty. Ruiz, was “suwapang and an estapador”. Both were charged with Serious Or al
Defamation. The older petioner died and the younger petitioner appealed that he should only be charged for slight oral defamation
S.C.
1. Oral defamation or slander has been defined as speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his
reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood
2. To determine whethe
whetherr an offense is serious or slig
slight,
ht, the doctrine of ancient respectability which determines if remarks are
serious or slight depending on their sense and grammatical meaning, while also considering the special circumstances, antecedents
and relationship of the offended and offending parties.
3. Defamatory words uttered specifically against a lawyer touching on his profession are libelous per se.
People vs. Judge Orcullo, 111 SCRA 609, January 30, 1982 – The accused Venida Peralta uttered the ff slanderous words against
Lydia Flores: “A hostess and has a paramour, any kind of penis has penetrated your vagina.” within the hearing distance of se veral
people. The accused filed a motion to quash on the grounds that the crime alleged cannot be prosecuted de oficio because the crime
being imputed by the accused is that of adultery against Lydia is therefore a private crime and must be brought by a complaint filed
by the complainant (according to par. 5, Art. 360 RPC). Respondent judge quashes the charge on such grounds
S.C.
1. The Sol-Gen’s comment is correct that the crime being imputed is not adultery but prostitution because of the usage of hostess
which has taken a notiorius connotation and since the charge does not allege that the victim is married and should thus be
presumed single.
2. In people vs. Hong Din Chu, an imputation that a married woman is a prostitute not only proclaims her as an adulterer, which is a
private offense, but also as one who has committed a crime against public moral, prostitution and can therefore be prosecuted de
oficio.
3. It must be noted
noted that only wh
when
en the derog
derogatory
atory remarks clearly and categorically reflect the elements of adultery would the
complaint for libel/slander by the offended party be necessary to commence prosecution.
It is a crime against honor which is committed by performing any act which casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another
person.
Elements
1. Offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor
2. Such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons
3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon the offended party
People vs. Valencia – kissing and touching a girl’s breast in public is slander by deed when it is committed with the intent to
dishonor the girl and if committed without lewd designs (labo. How can that not have lewd designs?
©Cases
People vs. Motita, 59 OG 3020, April 30, 1966 – Accused was seen in the public market holding a mirror between the legs of the
complainant Mrs. Pilar N. Letada and thus allowing people to see a reflection of her private part. Sol-Gen agrees that what was
committed was slander by deed but disagrees on the gravity of the deed and says that it is not serious
S.C.
1. The crime committed could be unjust vexation or slander by deed. However, though irritation or annoyance exists in both
crimes, slander by deed is committed when such annoyance is attended with publicity, dishonor or contempt. If the annoyance
was attended by those circumstances mentioned in rape, the crime would be acts of lasciviousness. The facts of the case
cas e show that
the act committed was slander by deed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
We are calling the private complainant for Criminal Case No. 123 for Slander by deed , Ms._____________________. We are offering
the testimony of the private complainant to prove her allegations.
Q: Mam can you please introduce yourself to the court, your address and your current occupation.
A:
A:
th
Q: I would now like to draw your attention to March 14 of this year.
Q:Are you able to speak with the defendant? Right after that, what happened?
Evidence:
1.
2.
3.
MPORTANT
MPORTANT
Words uttered in the heat of anger or in a quarrel, with some provocation on the part of the victim, is simple
slander.
slander.
a) The victim may not have heard the words, it is enough that a third person heard them.
b) Words uttered in one occasion and place and directed at several persons not mentioned individually constitute only
one offense.
offense.
c) Words used as expletives (to express anger, displeasure, are not defamatory)
defamatory)
CROSS -EXAMINATION