Andres vs.

People GR185860 June 5, 2009

Facts:

Petitioners Antonio Andres and Rodolfo Duran were charged with violation of Republic Act No.
6539 before the RTC for stealing one Motorized Kawasaki Tricycle belonging to Catalino Eugenio. The
petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge laid. The RTC found petitioners Antonio and Rodolfo guilty of
violating R.A. No. 6539, as amended. The petitioners appealed to the CA which affirmed the RTC decision.
The petitioners moved to reconsider this decision, but the CA denied their motion; hence, the present
recourse pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:

WON Andres is guilty of carnapping

Ruling:

Andres is guilty of carnapping. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court limits this Courts review to errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings are devoid of
evidentiary support or unless the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. On factual
matters, the factual findings of the CA are conclusive and beyond our review, particularly when the
appellate court affirms the factual findings. We see no palpable error or any arbitrariness in the lower
courts findings of fact and, thus, do not have any basis to review these findings.
People vs. Venancio Roxas GR 172604 August 17, 2010

Facts:

On January 12, 1994, around 3:00 p.m., Agnes Guirindola , while cruising along Panay Avenue,
Quezon City, on board a red 1993 model Nissan Sentra sedan, was suddenly flagged down by a man
wearing a PNP reflectorized vest identified as Roxas. Roxas told her that the street had been made a one-
way street because a girl figured in an accident in the same street two days ago. Agnes let Roxas enter the
car. Roxas told Agnes to make a left turn from the corner of the street and that he will alight somewhere
in Mother Ignacia. Agnes obliged and made a left turn and stopped the car. Roxas immediately switched
off the engine of the car and poked a gun at her saying that he needs her car. After a while, two persons
boarded the car. Subsequently, Roxas took the drivers seat and drove the car while Gungon held Agnes on
the shoulder with one hand, and her leg with the other. Gungon offered a softdrink to Agnes wherein
there were tablets floating inside the bottle. After Agnes drank it, Roxas told Gungon, to give her the
remaining two tablets. Gungon took the tablets from Roxas and forced Agnes to swallow the same. Agnes
felt dizzy and fell asleep.[19]

When Agnes woke up, she found out that her jewelries consisting of bracelets, pair of earrings,
necklace and a watch, as well as her pair of shoes, were already gone. Agnes also lost her wallet
containing a check in the amount of P3,000.00 and cash in the amount of P1,000.00.[20]She then asked
them if she could relieve herself. After Agnes relieved herself, and as she was about to get up and return
to the car, she saw white sparks at her right side and then she fell down. When she opened her eyes, she
saw Roxas walking back towards the car with a gun in his hand. She did not see Gungon at that particular
time. Then she lost consciousness. When Agnes regained consciousness, she was all alone. Her parents
reported the incident to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and an information was filed against
the accused. The court a quo, found Roxas guilty of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with
frustrated murder, carnapping and theft. The court of appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the court a
quo.

Issue:

WON Roxas is guily of carnapping

Ruling:

Roxas is guilty of violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law. R.A. 6539, otherwise known as An Act Preventing
and Penalizing Carnapping, defines carnapping as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle
belonging to another without the latters consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things." More specifically, the elements of the crime are as follows:
 1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle;
3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;
4. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking
was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force
upon things.

A careful examination of the evidence presented would show that all the elements of carnapping were
proven in this case. It cannot be denied that the 1993 Nissan Sentra with plate number TKR-837 was
unlawfully taken from Agnes without her consent and by means of force or intimidation, considering that
he and his co-accused alternately poked a gun at Agnes. After shooting her, appellant also flee with the
subject vehicle which shows his intent to gain. Agnes also positively identified appellant and Gungon as
the ones who took the subject vehicle from her.
The court found no persuasive much less compelling reason to depart from the findings of the trial court.
Agnes not only positively identified her abductors, she also graphically narrated what happened on
January 12, 1994. Actual restraint of the victim's liberty was evident in the instant case from the moment
Agnes was taken from Panay Avenue to a remote place in Batangas.
Orquinaza vs. People GR 165596 November 17, 2005

Facts:

On February 5, 2003, respondent Edelyn Arida, together with her witness, Julio Espinili, executed a sworn
statement before the Calamba City Police Station regarding the alleged act of petitioner of kissing her and
touching her breasts while she was taking a nap inside the Development Room of the Calamba Model
Makers factory. Arida was an employee of Calamba Model Makers while petitioner was its General
Manager. SPO4 Filipina Manaig referred the case of sexual harassment to the City Prosecutor of Calamba.
Assistant City Prosecutor Paderayon issued a resolution finding that there was no transgression of the
anti-sexual harassment law, but petitioner's act of grabbing complainant's breasts and kissing her is
punishable under another law for acts of lasciviousness. Thus, he filed with the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities an information charging petitioner with acts of lasciviousness.

On April 10, 2003, Judge Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner.
Petitioner filed with the court an omnibus motion praying that (1) the warrant of arrest be recalled, (2)
the information be quashed, (3) the arraignment be invalidated and set aside, and (4) the case be
dismissed. He argued primarily that the information for acts of lasciviousness was void as the preliminary
investigation conducted by the prosecutor was for sexual harassment and not for acts of lasciviousness.
The motion was denied. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC of Calamba City. The RTC, in
its Decision dated July 21, 2004 and its Order dated October 4, 2004, affirmed the order of the MTCC.

Issue:

WON the information for acts of lasciviousness against Oquinaza is proper

Ruling:

Arida's statement which was submitted by the Calamba City Police to the Office of the Prosecutor for the
conduct of the preliminary investigation contains all the allegations to support the charge of acts of
lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., (1) the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness, (2) under any of the following circumstances: (a) using force or intimidation,
(b) the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) offended party is under 12
years of age. The conduct of another preliminary investigation for the offense of acts of lasciviousness
would be a futile exercise because the complainant would only be presenting the same facts and evidence
which have already been studied by the prosecutor. The Court frowns upon such superfluity which only
serves to delay the prosecution and disposition of the criminal complaint.
The designation by the police officer of the offense as sexual harassment when she referred the case to
the Office of the Prosecutor is not conclusive as it is within the competence of the prosecutor to assess
the evidence submitted and determine therefrom the appropriate offense to be charged. That is precisely
the purpose of the preliminary investigation. It is a means to allow the parties to present their affidavits
and counter-affidavits before the prosecutor to enable the latter to ascertain whether there is sufficient
ground to indict the accused and to help him prepare the information to be filed in court. Preliminary
investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and
should be held for trial
People vs. Canoy GR 148139-43 October 15, 2003

Facts:

Den Canoy is the eldest of four children of the spouses Rebecca Roche and accused Hermenio. One
evening that year Den woke up to find her father, who usually slept next to her, sexually molesting her.
She felt pain but did not resist. The next day she did not reveal what occurred to her to her mother, when
she did so months later, her mother would not believe her. One evening in the summer of 1996, she was
again sexually molested. She simply cried and did not repel the aggression. She was in grade six at that
time. When her father finished abusing her, he warned her not to tell her mother or their family would be
torn apart. Den did as she was told and kept the whole incident to herself. In the morning of 31 May
1998 the accused sent his wife to the market accompanied by their sons. He then called Den inside his
room after she finished cooking for him. He held her arms and led her to his room after which he
proceeded to remove his daughters pants and underwear and touched her body. He made her lie down.
Den did not complain nor resist him. Den was reluctant to tell anyone about the ordeal she suffered in the
hands of her father because of fear. He also maltreated her and her siblings by frequently boxing,
slapping, kicking and whipping them.
From the 16th to the 18th of February 1999 Den did not return home from school. Her mother had
to look for her only to find her with one of her classmates. It was also that time when Dens teachers
called for her mother and informed her that Den had revealed to them that she was raped by her father
several times. On 20 February 1999, Den was again subjected to her fathers lechery. Once again, he
reminded her not to tell her mother to avoid trouble. Finally, unable to bear her fathers abuses and
finding no help from her mother, Den went alone to the Department of Social Work and Development on
24 February 1999 to report the molestations of her father. Soon after, five informations were filed before
the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City against Herminio Canoy. He was charged with Acts of
Lasciviousness, Attempted Rape and three counts of Qualified Rape. The trial court found him guilty of
the crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness and of two counts of Qualified Rape.

Issue:

WON Canoy is guilty of the crimes of acts of lasciviousness and qualified rape

Ruling:

Canoy is guilty of the crimes charged against him. The court found the evidence presented by the
prosecution to be adequate to support the conviction of appellant for the three counts of Acts of
Lasciviousness. The guilt of the appellant was likewise proved beyond reasonable doubt for the rapes
committed. In the case before us, we find no satisfactory factual basis that would move us to doubt the
trustworthiness of the complainants recital as to abandon the findings of the trial court. The supposed
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainant cited by the appellant refer to minor and peripheral
details which do not go into the elements of the crime. It is an oft-repeated rule in criminal cases that
minor inconsistencies in the statement of a witness do not affect his credibility. On the contrary, they
strengthen rather than weaken the witness credibility as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed
testimony.
The inconsistency does not detract from the veracity of her whole narration. We recognize that the
complainant had to testify on several incidents of molestations which occurred on separate occasions.
Considering her state of distress at having to recount each incident during trial, it is not unusual that she
would confuse the details of one incident for another. This Court has held that error-free testimony
cannot be expected of a rape victim for she may not be able to remember and recount every ugly detail of
the harrowing experience and the appalling outrage she went through especially so since she might in
fact be trying not to recall the same, as they are too traumatic and painful to remember. Lapses in the
testimony of the witness should be expected especially when the case involves a victim who has been
subjected to multiple rapes at a tender age.
Pader vs. People GR 139157 February 8, 2000
Facts:
On April 20, 1995, at about 8:00 p.m., Atty. Benjamin C. Escolango was conversing with his political
leaders at the terrace of his house at Morong, Bataan when petitioner appeared at the gate and shouted
putang ina mo Atty. Escolango. Napakawalanghiya mo! The latter was dumbfounded and embarrassed. At
that time, Atty. Escolango was a candidate for vice mayor of Morong, Bataan in the elections of May 8,
1995. On June 16, 1995 Atty. Escolango filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Bagac, Bataan a complaint
against petitioner for grave oral defamation, to which petitioner pleaded not guilty. After due trial, on
October 30, 1997 the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bagac, Bataan finds accused Rogelio Pader guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Grave Oral Defamation as defined and penalized under Article
358 of the Revised Penal Code. On appeal, on March 4, 1998, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the
decision of the Municipal Trial Court in toto.

Issue:
WON Pader is guilty of oral defamation
Ruling:
Unquestionably, the words uttered were defamatory. Considering, however, the factual backdrop of
the case, the oral defamation was only slight. The trial court, in arriving at its decision, considered that
the defamation was deliberately done to destroy Atty. Escolangos reputation since the parties were
political opponents. The trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the parties were also neighbors; that
petitioner was drunk at the time he uttered the defamatory words; and the fact that petitioners anger
was instigated by what Atty. Escolango did when petitioners father died. In which case, the oral
defamation was not of serious or insulting nature.
In Reyes vs. People, we ruled that the expression putang ina mo is a common enough utterance in
the dialect that is often employed, not really to slender but rather to express anger or displeasure. In fact,
more often, it is just an expletive that punctuates ones expression of profanity. We do not find it seriously
insulting that after a previous incident involving his father, a drunk Rogelio Pader on seeing Atty.
Escolango would utter words expressing anger. Obviously, the intention was to show his feelings of
resentment and not necessarily to insult the latter. Being a candidate running for vice mayor, occasional
gestures and words of disapproval or dislike of his person are not uncommon.
People and Photokina Marketing Corporation vs. Benipayo, et al GR 154473 April 21, 2009
Facts:

On January 31, 2002, respondent Alfredo L. Benipayo, then Chairman of the Commission on Elections,
delivered a speech in the Forum on Electoral Problems: Roots and Responses in the Philippines held at
the Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines-Diliman Campus, Quezon City. The speech was
subsequently published in the February 4 and 5, 2002 issues of the Manila Bulletin. Petitioner
corporation, believing that it was the one alluded to by the respondent when he stated in his speech,
filed, through its authorized representative, an Affidavit-Complaint for libel. Arguing that he was an
impeachable officer, respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon
City. Despite the challenge, the City Prosecutor filed an Information for libel against the respondent.
Respondent, for his part, moved for the dismissal of the case on the assertion that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over his person for he was an impeachable officer and thus, could not be criminally
prosecuted before any court during his incumbency; and that, assuming he can be criminally prosecuted,
it was the Office of the Ombudsman that should investigate him and the case should be filed with the
Sandiganbayan.

The RTC ruled that the case had to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction considering that the alleged libel
was committed by respondent in relation to his office, he delivered the speech in his official capacity as
COMELEC Chairman. Accordingly, it was the Sandiganbayan that had jurisdiction over the case to the
exclusion of all other courts. On motion for reconsideration, the trial court adhered to its ruling that it was
not vested with jurisdiction to hear the libel case.

Issue:
Won the court has jurisdiction over libel cases

Ruling:

The jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in force at the time of the
institution of the action, unless a latter statute provides for a retroactive application thereof. Article 360
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, is explicit on which court has
jurisdiction to try cases of written defamations, thus: The criminal and civil action for damages in cases
of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with
the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or
where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.

Since jurisdiction over written defamations exclusively rests in the RTC without qualification, it is
unnecessary and futile for the parties to argue on whether the crime is committed in relation to office.
Thus, the conclusion reached by the trial court that the respondent committed the alleged libelous acts in
relation to his office as former COMELEC chair, and deprives it of jurisdiction to try the case, is, following
the above disquisition, gross error. This Court, therefore, orders the reinstatement of Criminal Cases and
their remand to the respective Regional Trial Courts for further proceedings.
Lopez vs. People GR 172203 February 14, 2011
Facts:
On April 3, 2003, petitioner was indicted for libel in an Information. Upon arraignment on May 8, 2003, petitioner,
as accused, entered a plea of not guilty. During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated, among others, on the identity of
the accused, that the private complainant is the incumbent City Mayor of Cadiz City and is popularly known by the
nickname Bading and that the petitioner calls the private complainant Bading. Evidence introduced for the
prosecution reveals that in the early part of November 2002, while exercising his official duties as Mayor of Cadiz
City, private respondent saw billboards with the printed phrase CADIZ FOREVER with a blank space before the word
NEVER directly under said phrase. Those billboards were posted on the corner of Gustilo and Villena streets, in front
of Cadiz Hotel and beside the old Coca-Cola warehouse in Cadiz City. Some days later, on November 15, 2002,
private respondent received a phone call relating that the blank space preceding the word NEVER was filled up with
the added words BADING AND SAGAY. The next day, he saw the billboards with the phrase CADIZ FOREVER BADING
AND SAGAY NEVER printed in full. Reacting and feeling that he was being maligned and dishonored with the printed
phrase and of being a tuta of Sagay, private respondent, after consultation with the City Legal Officer, caused the
filing of a complaint for libel against petitioner.

On December 17, 2003, the RTC rendered judgment convicting petitioner of libel. The trial court ruled
that from the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution vs-a-vs that of the defense, all the
elements of libel are present. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Issue:
WON Lopez is guilty of libel

Ruling:
Lopez is not guilty. An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the
possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends
to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. To
determine whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be
taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them,
unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense. Moreover, a charge is sufficient if the words
are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they
were uttered were guilty of certain offenses or are sufficient to impeach the honesty, virtue or reputation or to hold
the person or persons up to public ridicule.
Tested under these established standards, we cannot subscribe to the appellate courts finding that the phrase
CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER tends to induce suspicion on private respondents character, integrity
and reputation as mayor of Cadiz City. There are no derogatory imputations of a crime, vice or defect or any act,
omission, condition, status or circumstance tending, directly or indirectly, to cause his dishonor. Neither does the
phrase in its entirety, employ any unpleasant language or somewhat harsh and uncalled for that would reflect on
private respondents integrity. Obviously, the controversial word NEVER used by petitioner was plain and simple. In
its ordinary sense, the word did not cast aspersion upon private respondents integrity and reputation much less
convey the idea that he was guilty of any offense. Simply worded as it was with nary a notion of corruption and
dishonesty in government service, it is our considered view to appropriately consider it as mere epithet or personal
reaction on private respondents performance of official duty and not purposely designed to malign and besmirch
his reputation and dignity more so to deprive him of public confidence.
Fermin vs. People GR 157643 March 28, 2008
Facts:
On complaint of spouses Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo Gutierrez, two criminal informations for
libel were filed against Cristinelli S. Fermin and Bogs C. Tugas before the Regional Trial Court The
informations states that accused Cristenelli Salazar Fermin, publisher, and Bogs C. Tugas, Editor-in-Chief of
Gossip Tabloid print and circulate in the headline and lead story of the said Gossip Tabloid issue of June
14, 1995 a libelious article, when in truth and in fact, the accused very well knew that the same are
entirely false and untrue but were publicly made for no other purpose than to expose said Annabelle
Rama Gutierrez to humiliation and disgrace, as it depicts her to be a fugitive from justice and a swindler,
thereby causing dishonor, discredit and contempt upon the person of the offended party.

Upon arraignment, petitioner and co-accused Bogs C. Tugas both pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, a joint
trial ensued. The RTC of Quezon City petitioner and Tugas guilty of libel. Aggrieved, petitioner and Tugas
appealed to the CA. The appellate court affirmed the conviction of petitioner, but acquitted Tugas on
account of non-participation in the publication of the libelous article.

Issue:
WON Fermin is guilty of libel

Ruling:
Fermin is guilty of libel. A libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary; or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead. In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their
entirety and should be taken in their plain and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood
by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.

To say that the article, in its entirety, is not libelous disturbs ones sensibilities; it would certainly
prick ones conscience. There is evident imputation of the crime of malversation, that the complainants
converted for their personal use the money paid to them by fellow Filipinos in America in their business
of distributing high-end cookware; of vices or defects for being fugitives from the law,that complainants
and their family returned to the Philippines to evade prosecution in America; and of being a wastrel (that
Annabelle Rama Gutierrez lost the earnings from their business through irresponsible gambling in
casinos). The attribution was made publicly, considering that Gossip Tabloid had a nationwide
circulation. The victims were identified and identifiable. More importantly, the article reeks of malice, as it
tends to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the complainants.
Figueroa vs. People GR 159813 August 9, 2006
Facts:
On March 24, 1992, in the RTC of Davao City, the city prosecutor of Davao, at the instance of
one Aproniano Rivera, filed an Informationfor libel under Article 355 in relation to Article 360 of the
Revised Penal Code against the herein petitioners, Tony N. Figueroa and Rogelio J. Flaviano. That Tony
VN. Figueroa, writer under the column entitled Footprints of the People's Daily Forum, published in the
People's Daily Forum, a news publication which newspaper was read by the people
throughout Davao City. Petitioners attempt to pass off the subject published article as one that portrays
the condition of the Bankerohan Public Market in general. Citing Jimenez v. Reyes, they challenge
the finding of the two courts below on the libelous or defamatory nature of the same article which, to
them, must be read and construed in its entirety. It is their posture that the article was not directed at the
private character of complainant Aproniano Rivera but on the sorry state of affairs at the Bankerohan
Public Market.

On arraignment, petitioners as accused, assisted by counsel, entered a common plea

of Not Guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. On June 8, 1993, the RTC rendered its
decision finding both petitioners guilty as charged. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Issue:
WON Figueroa is guilty of libel

Ruling:
Figueroa is guilty of libel. While it is true that a publication's libelous nature depends on its scope, spirit
and motive taken in their entirety, the article in question as a whole explicitly makes mention of private
complainant Rivera all throughout. It cannot be said that the article was a mere general commentary on
the alleged existing state of affairs at the aforementioned public market because Rivera was not only
specifically pointed out several times therein but was even tagged withderogatory names. Indubitably,
this name-calling was, as correctly found by the two courts below, directed at the very person of
Rivera himself.
If, as argued, the published article was indeed merely intended to innocently present the current
condition of the Bankerohan Public Market, there would then be no place in the article for the needless
name-calling which it is wrought full of. It is beyond comprehension how calling Rivera a leech, a paper
tiger, a non-Visayan pseudobully with the arrogance of a tribal chieftain save for his speaking in some
strange Luzon lingo and twang and who has no business being in Davao or Bankerohan can ever be
regarded or viewed as comments free of malice. As it is, the tag and description thus given Rivera have no
place in a general account of the situation in the public market, and cannot, by any stretch of the
imagination, be construed to be anything other than what theyreally are: defamatory and libelous in
nature, and definitely directed at the private character of complainant Rivera. For indeed, no logical
connection can possibly be made between Rivera's Luzonorigin and the conditions of the Bankerohan
Public Market. Doubtless, the words used in the article reek of venom towards the very person of Rivera.

Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means injuring a person's character, fame or reputation
through false and malicious statements. It is that which tends to injure reputation or to diminish the
esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in the complainant or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions
about him. It is the publication of anything which is injurious to the good name or reputation of another
or tends to bring him into disrepute.[6]
Mari vs. CA GR 127694 May 31, 2000
Facts:

Complainant Norma Capintoy and petitioner Quirico Mari were co-employees in the Department of
Agriculture, with office at Digos, Davao del Sur, although complainant occupied a higher position. On
December 6, 1991, petitioner borrowed from complainant the records of his 201 file. However, when he
returned the same three days later, complainant noticed that several papers were missing which included
official communications from the Civil Service Commission and Regional Office, Department of
Agriculture, and a copy of the complaint by the Rural Bank of Digos against petitioner. Upon instruction of
her superior officer, Honorio Lumain, complainant sent a memorandum to petitioner asking him to
explain why his 201 file was returned with missing documents. Instead of acknowledging receipt of the
memorandum, petitioner confronted complainant and angrily shouted at her, banged a chair in front of
complainant and choked her. With the intervention of the security guard, petitioner was prevailed upon
to desist from further injuring complainant.

On January 7, 1992, complainant filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur a criminal
complaint against petitioner for slander by deed. However, the complaint was amended, adding that the
crime was aggravated by the fact that the offended party was a woman. The Municipal Trial Court found
the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge filed against him. The Regional Trial Court
affirmed the appealed decision in toto. The Court of Appeals rendered decision affirming the judgment a
quo convicting petitioner of serious slander by deed.

Issue:
WON Mari is guilty of serious slander by deed

Ruling:

Mari is guilty of serious slander by deed. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported by
substantial evidence are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this
Court, unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule, such as diverse factual findings of the
lower courts or the findings are entirely grounded on speculations. Petitioner failed to prove that the case
falls within the exceptions.

The municipal trial court found the attendance of an "ordinary aggravating circumstance." The court did
not state what this aggravating circumstance was, as required. True, the amended criminal complaint
alleged that the crime had been aggravated by the fact that the offended party is a woman. However, the
mere fact that the victim is a woman is not per se an aggravating circumstance. There was no finding that
the evidence proved that the accused in fact deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the
victim, or showed manifest disrespect to the offended woman or displayed some specific insult or
disrespect to her womanhood. There was no proof of specific fact or circumstance, other than the victim
is a woman, showing insult or disregard of sex in order that it may be considered as aggravating
circumstance. Hence, such aggravating circumstance was not proved, and indeed, in the circumstances of
this case may not be considered as aggravating