GR 104189; (March, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104189 March 30, 1993
Amelia Larobis, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Amelia Larobis was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of grave oral defamation by the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court, a decision affirmed in toto by the Regional Trial Court and later by the Court of Appeals with a modification to the penalty. The courts found that petitioner, within hearing distance of several persons, shouted defamatory words at the complainant, a 61-year-old public school teacher of 32 years. The words were: “LIMBONGAN, MARO NGA MAGTUTUDLO, PATAY GUTOM, TIGULANG GIUBAN NA, BOGOK, HUGAWAN, IPASALBIDS KA NAKO NI DODONG AMORA.” (“You are a cheat, a dishonest teacher, you are dead hungry, an old person with gray hair, dull, dirty, I will have you salvage(d) by Dodong Amora.”). The Regional Trial Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of four months and one day of arresto mayor maximum to one year and one day of prision correccional minimum. The Court of Appeals modified this penalty to three months of arresto mayor as minimum and one year and eight months of prision correccional as maximum.
ISSUE
The sole legal question raised is whether petitioner is liable only for slight oral defamation instead of grave oral defamation. Additionally, the Supreme Court reviewed the propriety of the penalties imposed by the lower courts.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed that petitioner is guilty of grave oral defamation. The determination between serious and slight oral defamation depends not only on the utterances but also on special circumstances such as the social standing or advanced age of the offended party. The elements qualifying the offense as grave are present, as petitioner disregarded the respect due to the complainant’s age and status. The claim that the words were uttered in the heat of anger does not reduce the crime to simple oral defamation, as the words were calculated to strike deep into the victim’s character.
Regarding the penalty, the Court held that the Regional Trial Court erred in imposing the minimum term, while the Court of Appeals erred in imposing the maximum term. For grave oral defamation under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty is arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term should be within the range of arresto mayor medium (two months and one day to four months). The Court of Appeals correctly fixed the minimum at three months of arresto mayor. For the maximum term, with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, it should be within the medium period of the penalty prescribed (one year and one day to one year and eight months). The Regional Trial Court’s maximum term of one year and one day is within this medium period, and the Court of Appeals had no basis to increase it. Therefore, the Supreme Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence ranging from three months of arresto mayor to one year and one day of prision correccional, and affirmed the civil liabilities.