Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Manila

CARLOS G. GALPO,
Complainant,

NPS Docket No.: XV-07-INQ-23G-02841

-versus-
For: GRAVE SLANDER, UNJUST
VEXATION & ASSAULT
UPON PERSON IN
AUTHORITY

ROBERT REY PIONELA and

MARICEL PIONELA CHANCHICO,
Respondents.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -X
Date Filed: July 11, 2023
Date Assigned: July 17, 2023
Date Received: July 19, 2023
Date Submitted: August 2, 2023

RESOLUTION

This resolves the complaint for Grave Slander, Unjust Vexation and Assault Upon Person
in Authority filed by complainant Sanitary Inspector 3 Carlos G. Galpo against respondents
Robert Rey Pionela and Maricel Pionela Chanchico.

As culled from the records, the facts of this case are as follows:

Complainant, in his Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagrereklamo, avers, inter alia, that on July
5, 2023 while he was on duty conducting inspection at 28 th Avenue Café owned by respondent
Maricel Pionela Chanchico, he was asking about the document of the said business establishment
and was told that it was in the possession of their child who is processing their business permit.
Respondent told him to wait for his brother and while he was on stand-by thereat respondent
Robert Rey Pionela stated recording video of him with the use of his cellphone. Complainant
told the respondent that he posted a Notice of Appointment a day before and explained to him
the purpose according to his Mission Order. But the said respondent continued with the taking of
video recording of him and was shouting at him “BAKIT MO KAMI GINUGULO?”,
“BAKIT KAMI LANG?” “DAPAT LAHAT. The complainant replied to the respondent
“Lahat kayo dito ay merong notice” but the latter answered “AH GANUN?”,
“BINUBULABOG MO KAMI”. The respondent repeatedly shouted in the middle of the street
that complainant is asking for Php10,000.00 while continuously taking video of him with a
cellphone.

During the preliminary investigation hearing of this case, the respondents appeared and
submit their Joint-Counter Affidavit where they vehementl and categorically denied all the
allegations imputed against them by the complainant.

WE NOW RESOLVED.
 The undersigned investigating prosecutor finds no probable cause to indict respondents
Robert Rey Pionela and Maricel Pionela Chanchico of the offenses charged.
With regards to Grave Slander:

It is a settled rule in cases of Slander that hurling offensive and scurrilous epithets such as
in the instant case, tending to injure the character and integrity of complainant, who as in this
case is holding a public office, is oral defamation even if other persons and not the offended
party heard the slanderous words. This is because a man’s reputation is the estimate in which
others hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself (People vs. Clarin, CA., 37 O.G.
1106; People vs. Atencio, CA-G.R. Nos. 11351-R, Dec. 14, 1954.). Considering however that
the complainant presented no corroborating witness, there is thus no evidence of the alleged
offensive and defamatory statements being uttered in public and more importantly of publicity,
an essential element of Slander, thus the instant complaint for Grave Slander must be dismissed.

As to the charge of the crime of Unjust Vexation against the respondents:

Unjust vexation is defined as any human conduct, without violence, that unjustly annoys
an innocent person.1 Being a felony in dolo, malice is an element of the crime. In this case
however, the element of malice is lacking. True as it is that respondents may have hurled
invectives towards complainant, it can be said that the same was done without any criminal
intent to annoy but may be construed only as respondent’s expression of anger and displeasure
towards complainant and the awful situation of being inspected in their area. Moreover, as a
public employee, complainant should not be too onion-skinned and should be more tolerant of
criticisms especially if the statements of his public clients, although hurtful and insulting, were
uttered in connection with the performance of his duties as sanitary inspector.

On the other hand, Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) reads as follows:

Art. 148. Direct assaults. - Any person or persons

who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or
intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes
enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and
sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or seriously
intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his
agents, while engaged in the performance of official
duties, or on occasion of such performance, shall suffer
the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, when
the assault is committed with a weapon or when the
offender is a public officer or employee, or when the
offender lays hands upon a person in authority. If none of
these circumstances be present, the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.

It is clear from the foregoing provision that direct assault is an offense against public
order that may be committed in two ways: first, by any person or persons who, without a public
uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated
in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition; and second, by any person or persons who,
without a public uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person
in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on
occasion of such performance (Rivera v. People, 501 Phil. 37, 44-45 (2005)).

The elements of the second mode, which is the more common form of assault, are:

1
Baleros Jr vs People, G.R. No. 138033, January 30, 2007.
 1. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force,
(c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious
resistance;

2. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his

agent;

3. That at the time of the assault the person in authority or

his agent (a) is engaged in the actual performance of
official duties, or [b] that he is assaulted by reason of the
past performance of official duties;

4. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a

person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his
duties;

5. That there is no public uprising (Reyes, Luis B., The

Revised Penal Code, Book Two, Fifteenth Edition, Revised
2001, p. 122.).

Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code defines persons in authority and agents of persons
in authority as:

xxx any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as

an individual or as a member of some court or governmental
corporation, board or commission, shall be deemed a person
in authority. A barangay captain and a barangay chairman
shall also be deemed a person in authority.

It cannot be gainsaid that complainant who is a Sanitary Inspector is a person in authority

being a member of the Board of Sanitation. However, the Sinumpaang Salaysay ng
Pagrereklamo is bereft of any allegation as to whether the complainant’s resistance to his
inspection is so serious amounting to direct assault. The first element of direct assault requires
that respondent employed force or that there was serious intimidation or serious resistance. In
this case, the same is lacking

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, it is most respectfully recommended that the

foregoing resolution be APPROVED and that the charges for Grave Slander, Unjust Vexation
and Assault Upon Person in Authority against respondents Robert Rey Pionela and Maricel Pio-
nela Chanchico be DISMISSED due to insufficiency of evidence.

City of Manila, 8 August 2023.

MEDEL ALLAN M. MILAN

Assistant City Prosecutor
Member, Eleventh Division
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0015284
Valid until April 14, 2025
APPROVED FOR THE CITY PROSECUTOR:

JOHN ERICK R. FLORDELIZA

Senior Assistant City Prosecutor
Chief, Eleventh Division
MCLE Compliance No.VII-0003663
Issued on June 10, 2021/Pasig City
Copy furnished:
 CARLOS G. GALPO – 1283 Int. 26 Tambunting Street, Brgy. 375, Sta. Cruz, Manila 1014
 ROBERT REY PIONELA – 3435 F. Roxas St., Bo. Obrero, Tondo, Manila 1013
 MARICEL PIONELA CHANCHICO – 1081 R. Papa St., Bo. Obrero, Brgy. 189, Tondo, Manila 1013