GR L 8777 9; (August, 1956) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8777-79; August 14, 1956
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CORAZON AQUINO alias AZON, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Corazon Aquino was accused before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in three separate, identically worded informations for the crime of grave oral defamation. Each information referred to a different offended party, specifically three lawyers bearing the surname “Merrera.” The charge was for allegedly uttering in public, on or about June 4, 1954, the words: “You Merrera lawyers, are stealers . . . shameless . . . impolite.” The prosecution filed three informations on the theory that three separate crimes were committed against three individuals. The lower court, upon motion of the defense, ordered the consolidation of the three informations into one, holding that the defamatory statement, uttered once on a single occasion against a group designated by a common surname and not individually mentioned, constituted only one offense. The prosecution appealed this order.
ISSUE
Whether the single utterance of a defamatory statement against a group of persons, designated by their common surname but not separately mentioned, constitutes one offense or multiple offenses of grave oral defamation.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court, holding that the act constituted only one offense. The Court reasoned that the defamatory statement was uttered only once on a single occasion. It referred to a family of lawyers collectively by their common surname (“Merrera lawyers”) and did not individually mention them. Following the principle established in common law and supported by prior Philippine cases (e.g., U.S. vs. Kelly), a libel or defamation contained in one publication or utterance, even if it affects multiple persons, constitutes a single crime because the punishable act is the publication itself, which tends to disturb the peace and good order of society. The Court clarified that its previous ruling in People vs. Luz Jose, which suggested a different policy focusing on individual injury, had been overruled by People vs. Doriquez. Consequently, the utterance in question should be the subject of only one information. The order of consolidation was affirmed.