G.R. No. L-6354, March 28, 1911
THE UNITED STATES vs. EDUARDO SALAZAR and TARCILA PALACIO

FACTS

Defendants Eduardo Salazar and Tarcila Palacio (husband and wife) were traveling merchants. They left Trinidad B. Cruz in charge of their house and children. Upon returning, they discovered a diamond ring missing and accused Cruz of taking it, first to her cousin and later in the presence of three witnesses. Cruz denied the accusation and filed a complaint for injurias. The provincial fiscal subsequently filed a complaint for calumny in the Court of First Instance, which convicted the defendants. They appealed, contesting the fiscal’s authority to prosecute, the sufficiency of evidence, and the penalty applied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the crime of calumny, as defined under the Penal Code, could be prosecuted upon the complaint of the provincial fiscal, absent a complaint from the offended party.
2. Whether the evidence proved the defendants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the trial court correctly applied the penalty for calumny by treating the imputed crime as “grave” (robbery) rather than “less grave” (larceny).

RULING

1. Yes, the fiscal could prosecute. Under Act No. 1773 (October 11, 1907), calumny was reclassified as a public crime, prosecutable by the fiscal without need for a complaint from the offended party, unlike injurias which retained that requirement for non-public officials. The legislative intent was clear, making calumny a public offense.

2. Yes, guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The defendants knowingly and maliciously accused Cruz of stealing the ring. Their public imputation, false and without basis, constituted calumny under Article 452 of the Penal Code.

3. No, the penalty was incorrect. The complaint alleged the imputation of robbery (a “grave” crime under Articles 6 and 25, Penal Code). However, the evidence showed the defendants accused Cruz only of taking the ring without forcei.e., larceny, a “less grave” crime punishable by correccional penalties. Thus, under Article 454, paragraph 2, the penalty should be arresto mayor in its minimum degree and a fine of 3253,250 pesetas.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment. Each defendant was sentenced to one month and one day of arresto mayor, a fine of 325 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and each to pay one-half of the costs.