G.R. No. L-21475 September 30, 1966
AMANCIO BALITE, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

FACTS

Petitioner Amancio Balite was convicted of grave oral defamation by the Municipal (City) Court of Cebu City. The conviction was modified on appeal by the Court of Appeals, which increased the penalty. The case reached the Supreme Court via certiorari. The undisputed facts are: In December 1958, during a strike by the Democratic Labor Association against Cebu Stevedoring Company, union president Delfin Mercader was offered P10,000 by Richard Corominas & Co. Balite, who was with Mercader, later proposed at a union meeting that the money be given only to the officers, not the members. This was opposed, leading Balite to walk out, threaten to destroy the union and expose Mercader, and later engage in a smear campaign against him, resulting in his expulsion from the union. On May 21, 1959, at the Cebu City waterfront, Balite, within hearing of several members of the Marine Officers Guild (of which Mercader was legal counsel), uttered in Cebu Visayan that Mercader “sold the Union,” “swindled” union money, received a P10,000 bribe from Richard Corominas & Co. and another P6,000 from Cebu Stevedoring Company, was “engaged in racketeering,” and was “enriching himself with the capitalists.” This led to Mercader being eased out as the guild’s counsel. Mercader filed a verified criminal complaint for grave oral defamation with the City Fiscal’s Office, which, after preliminary investigation, found probable cause, attested to the complaint, recommended bail, and caused it to be filed in the City Court on August 29, 1959.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Cebu City court acquired jurisdiction over the case, given the argument that defamation imputing a crime prosecutable only de oficio (like estafa) must be commenced solely by the offended party’s complaint, not by information.
2. Whether the Cebu City Court had jurisdiction over the crime of grave oral defamation, considering the penalty and the court’s jurisdictional limits under the city charter.
3. Whether the crime had prescribed, based on the argument that it was merely slight oral defamation.
4. Whether the civil liability for indemnity was extinguished by a compromise agreement between the parties.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction – Commencement of Action: YES, the court acquired jurisdiction. The general rule is that criminal actions are commenced by complaint or information. The last paragraph of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires prosecution “at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party” for defamation imputing a crime not prosecutable de oficio, does not exclude criminal action started by complaint. Here, the complaint was first lodged with the City Fiscal, who conducted a preliminary investigation, found probable cause, attested to the verified complaint, recommended bail, and caused it to be filed. By adopting the complaint as his own, the fiscal instituted the proceeding in conformity with the law and the Cebu City Charter. The purpose of the law—to prevent annoyance by prosecution without the intervention of prosecuting officers—was satisfied.
2. On Jurisdiction – Court’s Authority: YES, the Cebu City Court had jurisdiction. While Section 40 of the Cebu City Charter limited its jurisdiction to offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than 6 months or a fine of not more than P200, Republic Act 2613, effective August 1, 1959 (before the complaint was filed on August 29, 1959), expanded the jurisdiction of city courts to try offenses where the penalty does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six years or a fine not exceeding three thousand pesos. Grave oral defamation, punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period (4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months), falls within this expanded jurisdiction.
3. On Prescription: NO, the crime had not prescribed. The offense was grave, not slight, oral defamation. The averments in the complaint characterize the crime. The imputations made by Balite were of a serious and insulting nature, as they accused Mercader of the crime of estafa (swindling) and portrayed him as a corrupt racketeer, which affected his professional standing as a lawyer and guild counsel. Grave oral defamation prescribes in 10 years (from the then applicable Art. 90, RPC), not 2 months. The complaint, filed within three months and eight days of the incident, was well within the prescriptive period.
4. On Civil Liability: YES, the civil liability for indemnity was extinguished. During the pendency of the case, the parties entered into a compromise agreement where Mercader, for valuable consideration, agreed to “withdraw and/or desist from further prosecuting his claim for damages” against Balite. While a compromise on civil liability does not extinguish the criminal action for the imposition of the legal penalty, it does extinguish the civil liability arising from the offense. Therefore, the order for Balite to indemnify Mercader in the sum of P5,000.00 must be deleted.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for grave oral defamation but modified the judgment by deleting the indemnity of P5,000.00. Costs were imposed on petitioner.