Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL NORTE
Hall of Justice, Carbide Village, Tubod, Iligan City

LEILA DE SINCO NPS DOCKET NO.V-03-INQ-

152024
Complainant

-versus- FOR: SLANDER/ORAL

DEFAMATION under
Art. 358 of the
Revised Penal Code.

JANETH NAPOLAS

Respondent

X---------------X

RESOLUTION

The respondent JANETH NAPOLAS was charged with the

crime of SLANDER/ORAL DEFAMATION under Art. 358 of the
Revised Penal Code filed by LEILA DE SINCO.

In support of her complaint, the herein complainant

attached the following documents:
1. Complaint - Affidavit of Leila de Sinco
2. Affidavit of Witness by Marites Shamsey

As her counter, the respondent herein attached the

following document to support his counter arguments against
the complainant.

1. Counter-Affidavit of Janeth Napolas

1
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Based on the review conducted by the undersigned on

the facts of the case stated hereunder:

The complainant alleged that the respondent

constructed a post in the part or within the side of their
land, and the former informed the latter that she is
prohibited from erecting a post because the property does
not belong to them. That on March 3, 2024 at about
2pm, while her daughter was staying outside their house,
in the presence of a large crowd, Janeth pointed fingers
toward her daughter, insulted their family, screaming
that the complainant and her family are land stealers,
specifically stating: “Sabihin mo Jenai sa nanay mo na
putangina na wag niya inaangkin itong lupang
pinapatayuan ko ng poste dahil pag mamay ari ko to!
Mahiya naman kayo mga magnanakaw! Ang kakapal ng
mukha niyo! Ni hindi nga kayo taga rito eh.”
Furthermore, the complainant alleged that the
respondent JANETH NAPOLAS verbally, maliciously, and
publicly imputed humiliation against her in order to
discredit her reputation;

The witness of the complainant, Marites Shamsey, a

neighbor of Janeth Napolas and Leila De Sinco for nearly
three years now, depose and state that on March 3, 2024
at about 2:00pm in the afternoon, she heard that Janeth
Napolas shouted towards the daughter of Leila De Sinco
uttering “Sabihin mo Jenai sa nanay mo na putangina na
wag niya inaangkin itong lupang pinapatayuan ko ng
poste dahil pag mamay ari ko to! Mahiya naman kayo
mga magnanakaw! Ang kakapal ng mukha niyo! Ni hindi
nga kayo taga rito eh.” She averred that Leila’s daughter,
Neneth felt embarrassed and thereafter went inside their
house crying.

On the other hand, the Respondent, Janeth

Napolas, denied the allegations and asserted that on
March 3, 2024 at about 2pm, she was at home with her
two daughters Anie and Lala at Purok Lourdes, Brgy.
Coca-Cola, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte, and while they
were talking on the veranda of their house, she saw the
daughter of Leila De Sinco named Naneth De Sinco. The
herein respondent called her and told her that “Naneth

2
 sabihin mo sa Nanay mo na wag ng sumugod dito at
magsabi ng kung ano-ano kasi lupa to namin at
maraming tao ang nakaka-alam nun, hope makapag isip-
isip sya” in a nice manner but instead of answering her,
Naneth ran rapidly to their house. She further alleged
that after 20 to 30 minutes Leila, Mario and Pimentel De
Sinco shouted outside of our house and tried to break
the window of their house by throwing stones, and as
soon as they got in, they searched around the house.
Thereafter, Pimentel forcibly kicked the door with a gun
in his right hand. Moreover, the respondent alleged that
Leila kept shouting at them and was about to slap her,
however, her daughter intervened to defend her,
prompting Pimentel to push her while wielding his gun,
managing to snatch her necklace before departing.

ANALYSIS/FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code specifically states that:

“Article 358. Slander. – Oral defamation shall be

punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision 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 the case of Ramos vs People of the Philippines, (G.R. No.

226454, November 20, 2017), the Supreme Court states that:

“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."

This jurisprudence averred the elements of oral

defamation, which 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.

3
Similarly, in the case of People v. Bulaong (G.R. No. 125569,
July 20, 2000), the Supreme Court held that:

“For oral defamation to be punishable under Article 358

of the Revised Penal Code, it must be proven that the
defamatory statement was made with malice or ill will,
and that it was publicly and maliciously uttered to
discredit the reputation of the offended party.

x x x

In the present case, the facts presented by the

complainant, accompanied by the statement of the witness, is
sufficient enough to prove the existence of Oral Defamation
under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, and that the act
mentioned herein by the respondent constitutes a violation
thereof. With reference to the affidavit of witness, the
circumstantial facts mentioned thereof correlates with the
facts averred by the herein Complainant. Whereas, the
respondent, on her Counter-Affidavit, while denying the
allegations, provided propositions in support of her defense,
however, such propositions, albeit clear, lack sufficient
evidence and witnesses to substantiate their merit.

The facts of the case constitutes Slander or Oral

defamation under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. A
review of the records of this case reveals that it is evident that
all elements of Oral defamation mentioned under Article 358 of
the Revised Penal Code are present. The respondent, Janeth
with malice or ill will pointed fingers toward Naneth De Sinco
while exclaiming vociferously the defamatory remarks:
“Sabihin mo Jenai sa nanay mo na putangina na wag niya
inaangkin itong lupang pinapatayuan ko ng poste dahil pag
mamay ari ko to! Mahiya naman kayo mga magnanakaw! Ang
kakapal ng mukha niyo! Ni hindi nga kayo taga rito eh.”

In addition, the utterance of the defamatory statements

was made while they were in public, where there are large
numbers of crowds in their neighborhood. Moreover, the
statements made were said to have an imputation of a crime,
particularly the phrase “Mahiya naman kayo mga
magnanakaw!” Furthermore, this phrase uttered by the
respondent tends to cause dishonor to the reputation of the

4
Complainant, alleging without evidence that she is a theft in
the presence of a substantial audience.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most

respectfully recommended that Information for the crime of
Slander/Oral Defamation under Article 358 of the Revised
Penal Code be filed against the respondent, Janeth Napolas.

Iligan City, Lanao del Norte, Philippines, 21st of March 2024.

JHON RYAN C. SAURA

Assistant City Prosecutor

APPROVED BY:

ABDUL E. MECAGAAN
Chief City Prosecutor