FIRST ELEMENT:

There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or

imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance.

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, or omission, condition, status or circumstance, which tends to dishonor or
discredit or put him in or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.1

The purpose of the imputation is to lower the esteem or honor, or respect, in

which a person is regarded, such as: (a) The victim is humiliated or publicly
embarrassed (b) The victim is vilified, hated, becomes the subject of gossip, nasty
stories, suspected of wrongdoings, is avoided (c) The victim losses face, becomes a
laughing stock, is the object of ridicule.2

In determining 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. 3 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.4

Tested under these established standards, the post made by June Bernadette
Agravante branding Sarah Chinky Manolis as someone who uses the company’s
name (Caleb Motors) to “scam people” and “steal money from them” is a
derogatory imputation of a criminal act tending, directly or indirectly, to cause her
dishonor. The language tends to induce suspicion on Manolis’ personality,
reliability and character. The Facebook post in its entirety, employ language which
somewhat harsh and uncalled for that would reflect on private respondent’s
integrity. Obviously, the controversial words “USING OUR COMPANY’S NAME
TO SCAM PEOPLE” and “STEAL MONEY FROM THEM” were not plain and
simple but abstruse and fictitious. They were not intended merely to notify the
public that Sarah Chinky Manolis is no longer connected with the company (Caleb
Motors) but veiled and malicious suggestions or innuendo could be inferred from
1
Philippine Journalists, Inc. (People’s Journal) vs. Thoenen, 477 SCRA 482, G.R. No. 143372 (2005)
2
https://batasnatin.com/law-library/criminal-law/crimes-and-penalties/1079-libel.
3
Novicio vs. Aggabao, 418 SCRA 138, G.R. No. 141332 December 11, 2003
4
Lopez vs. People, 642 SCRA 668, G.R. No. 172203 February 14, 2011
such. The posts convey the idea that Manolis was guilty of an offense which cast
aspersion on respondent’s character, integrity and reputation. Furthermore, as the
posts circulated on Facebook, Manolis was exposed to ridicule, public humiliation
and became the subject of gossip and nasty stories.