Republe of the Philippine REGIONAL TRIAL COU) National Capital Judicial Resi Branch 117, Pesay City PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Piainlifl versus CRIM. CASE NO. M-PSY-11-14676+ FOR: GRAVE SLANDER AMY FRANCES TAN, Accused, DECISION “This ix an appeal trom the Decision dated 16 February 2017, of Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 46, Pasay City. Metro Manila in Crimi! eee n, M-PSY-11-14676 CR. as well as its Order dated 17 March 2017 denying aceused's Motion for Reconsideration thereof. “the Antecedents Aceused Amy Frances Tan was indicted of a crime of GRAVE: ORAT DEFAMATION in an information which provides: “phat on the 288 day’ of January 2011, tn Pasay City, Metro “Manita, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court the above-named accused. simultaneously or otherwise, with Gatberate intent of bringing Johnson Chang y Lubos into discredit Girepate and conten. did than and there wilful, unlawfully and Jeloniously an publicly speack and wer insulting and defamatory onde against Jofmson Chang Labos. consisting of the following, to wit “That he is a drug lord, who have millions that it bribe even the PDEA agent for him to be released atier his arrest”. which words and expressions had for its object or purpose nothing else but to east aspersions and dishonor against the said Complainant. therebv exposing him to publie hatred. contempt and ridicule, Contrary io law. During arraignment on Mecember 15, 2011, accused voli we arraig a " na entered u plea of “NOT GUILTY”, Cree‘Our urdere 46, ‘I the case be re-raliled and a rin syetence, Parties stipulated and admitted the The ot the uecused and jutisdiction of the Cour "On November 18, 2013, For the prosecution. private con Reiando Pura, Piinsp. Geionimme 4 Seger B. Montallana were presented witnesses, mphunant Johnson 1. Chang, SPOL C. Die, PO2 Gerardo Navarro, and Directo Johnson Chan a drug lord, who h '8 and police officers testified that accused uttered 40 be released afie ne illions that can bribe even the PDEA agen f 7 kis arvest” against the private complainant. “he is for him For the detente. aueused was presented as sole witnens She testitied hat the allegations against ce Ned and she never unered nsaves On Febmary 16, 2017 the convicting the uocused for S| MANNER, the decretal portion court a quo LANDER IN SERK of which reads: promulgated: a decision IOUS AND INSULTING WHEREFORE, premises considered, 1 CUNT IMY FRANCES 24N GUILTY beyond reasonable dou BN SERIGUS AND INSULTING 1 258 of the Revised Pen the Court ds for MANNER punished Code and as ctly proven A. and is hereby sentenced to {5 af pr sonnet fora period of $0 (6) MONTY of Arvesto Mayor mixin, as rian. 1p t0 TWO ce ) MONTHS of Priston Correstionad Minimum ns mins Sentence Lav. as well a the included thereto, AND FOUR 14 Accused! Tan is rurther dinected 10 indemnity or pay herein er nt tohnson C private. complainan p "Ey Lubes by way of crit Atunages In the amount of TEY THOUSAND. PESOS 1,000.05 SU ORDERED, ‘Thersun, « Mision Seeder Sa Us tenis ng Bited by the wecwed, however, he lower court denied the same nen Ones dated 17 March 2017 Ae‘prainant (no Pet. rec.) mg =r! ot, Sib genet led co Im an Order dat T dated May On June 20,2017 1 core, 20, 207. plain appt le ts manrandun, For Parl, accused filed her memoranduin dated 27 lone 2019 seen Accused »ppellant posited the following issues. t0 wit Guin! MHELHER O8 NOL 1He PROSECUTION Has PROVEN THE SBI OF THE ACCUSED BY PROUF BEYOND REASONABLE JL WHETHER OR NOP THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT JOHNSON CHANG TESTIMONY IS RELIABLE GIVEN THE FACT THAD HE PURPORILDLY BEEN FOUND TO LIE UNDER OATH AND MOTIVATED BY ILL-WILL, ASIDE FROM THE FACT IAL 1HIS CASE HAD BEEN BELATEDLY FILED. {WHETHER OR NOP UIE 1ESTIMONY OF THE ROLICE OBFICERS ARE RELIABLE GIVEN THAP MS, AMY TAN HAD BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY AND ACQULLIED tN THE RELATED CASE OF ACTEMPTED CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHICH THE SAID POLICE OFFICERS ALSO BELATEDLY FILED AGAINST HER, The Court's Ruling The ertme of Oral Delamation or Slander 1s punishable under Article 358, of the Revised Penal Code, io wit: Article 358. Slinder- Cral defamation shall be punished by anresie mayor in its maximum period 10 prision correctionai in its mimmum pernod it itis of Serious and insulting nature: otherwise the penalty shult be arresiv menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos Oral Delamation or Stander is libel committed by oral (spoken) moans, insiead of writing. It is defined as the “speaking of base and defamatory words which fend to pregtidice another in his reputation. office trace business or means of livelihood.” The elements of the crime af oral delamation are ie GR Ne M267, Jythere must be an imputation ofa erime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary or a status, or circumstance: (2) made orally: act, omission, condition, (3) public! (4) maliciously, (3) directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead: Which tend to cause the dishonor, dicredit or contempt of the person delamed. Onil defamation may either be simple w grave. it becomes grave when it is of so serious and insulting in nature.’ From the elements above-cited. all were duly proven to sustain accused-appeliant guilt of grave oral defamation, thus: 1)There was un imputation of a erime. or of @ vice or detect. real or imaginary. or any act. omission, status or circumstances as accused-appellant Amy Frances Tan imputed unto private complainant Johnson Chang a discretable act or condition that he is a drug lord and a drug peddler, 2)ihe imputation was made orally verbally in a public manner as accused-appellant uttered the said malicious imputations to private complainant while inside a police station; 3) the imputation was malicious and directed specitically to Johnson Chai and 4) tends to cause dishonour, discredit ur contempt Of the person c private complainant Johnson Chang Moreover. the imputation on the perso is a drug lord and « drug pe Slander of a grave kind of private complainant, that he ler, iy serious and insulting constituting In the cases of MMlenmeva vs People of tee Philippin There is grave stander when it is of a serious and insulting nature, The gravity of the oral defamation depends not only «17 upon the expression used. but also (2) on the personal relations of the accused and the offended parry, and (3) the circumstances sormounding the case. Indeed. it isa doctrine of ancient respectability that defarnatory words will fall under one ox the ather. depending not ony upon thelr sense, grammatical significance, and accepted ordinary meaning judging them separately but also upon the speciat circumstances of the case, innlecedents oF relationship between the offended party and the offender. which might tend to prove the intention of the affencier aa the time,”« ‘Thus. considering all these tacts and the presence of all the ele of the crime of grave slander, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay Branch 4p ruled correctly in finding accused-anpellant guilty beyond aes doubt for grave slander is - J AAs 10 acoused-appeliant's contention thet Mr. Chang's testimony toueliable and tainted heavily with is smolive, this court is not persuaded The court a quo corractiy ruled that the testimonies of private complainant and his witnesses are reliable and credible. All testimonies corroborated each other as opposed to the line unenrroborated testimony’ of the accused- aappeitant. Moreover the filing of the eomplamt against accused-anpellant alter wo (2} montis tiom the time the incident happened is not an afterthought and does not place doubt as to the truthfulness and oredibility of the complaint Under Article 90 of the Revised Penat Code, the prescription period for the filing of a complain’ for certain crimes ave enumeraied: ‘Ari. 90. Presenption of crime: Crimes punishable by death reelusion perpetia or rechusioa temporal shall prescribe in twenty vears The_crme_ol orai_delumauon_and_slander_by_deed shall telumation_and_slander_by deed shall ese mouths. ight offenses preseribe in wo months.” (Kmphasis. and underscoring supplied) In this case, *t does not matter whether private complainant filed the compisiat for slander right aller the incident or after two (2) monihs. 8 is tated in the law thai the crime af oral defamation shail preseribe in six (6) prontis, Therefore, pavate complainant very well fied the instant complain’ within hn right to seek lustee For shot happened. om tiane Likewise, uccusedsappellant raised the argument that the testimonies of the pulive oDivers were inctedible and unreliable because the police ‘olficers filed @ case against her for attempted corruption of public officials ‘id not prosper and acguitted er. Thus, the police officers were also sivated by ill-will against the accused-uppellant However, this Court finds the contention of accused-appelant untenable. As pointed out by MTC Branciy 46 of Pasay City in its Order dated 17 March 2017 in denying accused's Motion tor Reconsideration. thecourt a quo rightly ruled that accused-appellant's contention is misplaced and cumoi be given credence due to the fact that the charge filed by the police officers involves different tacts and dates not related to this case ‘Thus: “As to the Dectsion rendered by Hon, Allan B. Ariola of MeTC Br. 48, which rendered # devision involving accused acquittal for attempted cormption of public offieral. the same is_not directly connected tu the instani vase. The attempted corruption was ullevedly commited on January 25. 2011, while in the herein case, the crime was conuiited on Janwry 28, 2011. The testimonies given by the police officers_in_the attempted corruption of public official case is different from that of the testimonies given_n_thig case of grave slander In faot_the crimes arose irom diilereni incidents and are not connected witht gach ¢ ‘Thus, the Couri cannot, even as a matter of judicial 798-CR.”* (Emphasis supplied) Rvidemily. asseverations of accused-appellant is untenable and have no The findings of MeTC Br. 48 involving attempted corcuption of public ‘als cannot be given value im determming the outcome of the subyect Grave Slander as it involves different facts and issies entirely offi case for separate an distinet thereat YN THE OF THE bKORBGOING, finding no merit, the appeal is fe Decision dated 16 February 2017 of the Metropolis Trial Court Branch 46, Pasa City. is hereby affirmed. SO ORDERED. 1s this 21* day of November 2017, Pasay City, Metro Given in cham! faniia. NISC. DELA CRUE Presiding Judge ip Cerat Beanch 36 Pasay City rn eel 6