G.R. No. 82146 ; January 22, 1990
EULOGIO OCCENA, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO M. ICAMINA, Presiding Judge, Branch X of the Regional Trial Court Sixth Judicial Region, San Jose, Antique; THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Honorable Provincial Fiscal of Antique; and CRISTINA VEGAFRIA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eulogio Occena filed a criminal complaint for Grave Oral Defamation against private respondent Cristina Vegafria for publicly uttering insulting words against him, calling him a foolish barangay captain, ignoramus, traitor, tyrant, and Judas. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) convicted Vegafria of Slight Oral Defamation, imposing a fine but awarding no damages to Occena, who had actively intervened through a private prosecutor without reserving his right to file a separate civil action. The trial court found the facts did not warrant moral damages.
Occena appealed the civil aspect to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which denied his appeal, ruling that the MCTC decision constituted a final adjudication on Vegafria’s civil liability. The RTC held that by intervening in the criminal action without reservation, Occena assumed the risk of being unable to appeal if damages were denied. Occena then filed this petition for review, arguing the RTC erred in not applying Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code on civil liability from crime and Article 2219 of the Civil Code on recoverable moral damages for defamation.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the MCTC decision, unappealed on its criminal aspect but appealed on its civil aspect, constitutes a final adjudication on the accused’s civil liability; and (2) whether the offended party is entitled to an award of damages for the defamatory remarks.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, modifying the RTC decision. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the MCTC decision did not constitute a final adjudication on civil liability because Occena timely appealed that aspect. Citing People vs. Coloma, the Court clarified that from a judgment of conviction, two separate appeals may be taken: one by the accused on both criminal and civil liability, and another by the offended party solely on the civil aspect. The right of each party to appeal is independent. Thus, Occena’s appeal prevented the civil liability adjudication from becoming final, and the RTC erred in dismissing it.
On the second issue, the Court held that Occena is entitled to damages. Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code establishes that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable, and Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code allows recovery of moral damages for defamation. The offense of slight oral defamation is not among the felonies where no civil liability arises, as there is a clear offended party. The defamatory imputations against Occena, a barangay captain, were presumed malicious and caused injury to his feelings and reputation, as evidenced by his testimony of shame and anguish. The trial court misapprehended this evidence. Consequently, the Court awarded Occena P5,000.00 as moral damages and another P5,000.00 as exemplary damages.