Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > October 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19857 October 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO ATIENZA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19857. October 26, 1968.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAMASO ATIENZA, Defendant-Appellee.

Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and Solicitor Federico V. Tan for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Tommy C. Pacana, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PROSECUTION OF COMPLAINT FOR ORAL DEFAMATION MAY BE SIGNED BY THE VICTIM; INSTANT CASE. — There is a misapprehension both of law and of fact in the order of dismissal appealed from. While the charter of the City of Cagayan de Oro imposes upon the City attorney the duty to investigate offenses and to sign the corresponding informations or complaints, it does not say that the victim of the offense may not himself file a complaint. The law of more immediate relevancy is Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which states: "No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party." As construed by the lower court, invoking People v. Martinez, L-50, April 30, 1946, the foregoing provision sets up a prohibition against the prosecution of a charge of defamation upon complaint by the offended party when the defamation consists of the imputation of a crime which may be prosecuted de oficio. The decision in People v. Martinez does not support this conclusion. It simply underlines the indispensability of such a complaint where the crime imputed cannot be prosecuted de oficio such as adultery, concubinage, rape, seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness. The more recent case of Balite v. People, L-21475, September 30, 1966, is more apropos, its facts being similar to those in the case before us now.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING THE PROPER INSTITUTION OF THE COMPLAINT INVOLVED. — The misapprehension of fact on the part of the lower court lies in its having overlooked two circumstances: (1) the word "puta" alleged to have been uttered by the defendant in referring to the offended party does not necessarily connote the crime of prostitution as defined in the Revised Penal Code (Art. 202); and (2) the subject complaint, while signed and sworn to by the offended party herself, is also signed by the special counsel, as public prosecuting officer, who retained supervision and control of the case for the State and in fact conducted the cross-examination of the witnesses for the defense and the presentation of the rebuttal witness for the prosecution. Besides, the technical objection raised by the defense should have been deemed waived under those circumstances and at that late stage of the case.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


This is an appeal from the order of dismissal of the Municipal Court of the City of Cagayan de Oro in its Criminal Case No. 6612.

Defendant-appellee, Damaso Atienza, was charged with grave oral defamation in the said Court upon a sworn complaint signed by the offended party, Pilar Lee. The defamatory words allegedly uttered by the defendant were: "Pauli na, puta ka. Oo, puta ka, puta kat bilaw." The translation given in the complaint itself is: "Go home, you prostitute. Yes, you are a prostitute, really a prostitute." Below the verification and the list of prosecution witnesses, the complaint likewise had the signature of the special counsel, acting as public prosecutor.

The trial of the case, after the defendant’s plea of not guilty, was already well advanced, with only the sur-rebuttal witness for the defense still to be presented when counsel moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. Specifically, the jurisdictional objection was based on the fact that the case was being prosecuted upon complaint signed by the offended party herself instead of upon information signed by the prosecuting officer.

The lower court sustained the motion and issued the order of dismissal on March 30, 1962, citing Article VII, Section 24 of the charter of the City of Cagayan de Oro (Republic Act No. 521), which provides that the City attorney shall "investigate all charges of crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of laws and city ordinances and prepare the necessary informations or make the necessary complaints against the persons accused." The theory advanced is that since the offense of prostitution imputed by the defendant to the offended party for which imputation the complaint for oral defamation was lodged, is a public crime, it cannot be prosecuted except by information signed by the public prosecutor himself. Consequently, it is pointed out, the complaint here, having been signed by the offended party herself, did not effectively and validly launch the criminal action.

There is a misapprehension both of law and of fact in the order of dismissal appealed from. The provision of the charter of the City of Cagayan de Oro aforecited is not restrictive in character. While it imposes upon the City attorney the duty to investigate offenses and to sign the corresponding informations or complaints, it does not say that the victim of the offense may not himself file a complaint. The law of more immediate relevancy is Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which states: "No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de officio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party." As construed by the lower court, invoking People v. Martinez, L-50, April 30, 1946, the foregoing provision sets up a prohibition against the prosecution of a charge of defamation upon complaint by the offended party when the defamation consists of the imputation of a crime which may be prosecuted de officio. The decision in People v. Martinez does not support this conclusion. It simply underlines the indispensability of such a complaint where the crime imputed cannot be prosecuted de officio such as adultery, concubinage, rape, seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness. The more recent case of Balite v. People, L- 21475, September 30, 1966, is more apropos, its facts being similar to those in the case before us now. Speaking through Mr. Justice Conrado V. Sanchez, this Court there said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Read as it should be, the plain import of the statute just reproduced is that where defamation imputes a crime which cannot be prosecuted de officio, the general rule must give way, the criminal action must have to be brought solely ‘at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party.’ The converse proposition, however, cannot be true. Reasonable construction will not permit a deduction which could constrict criminal prosecution — of defamation which can be prosecuted de officio — by means of information. We do not propose to undertake the impermissible task of writing into the statute an alien concept: that which would exclude criminal action started by complaint. Nor should we attribute to the law an occult content."cralaw virtua1aw library

The misapprehension of fact on the part of the lower court lies in its having overlooked two circumstances: (1) the word "puta" alleged to have been uttered by the defendant in referring to the offended party does not necessarily connote the crime of prostitution as defined in the Revised Penal Code. (Art. 202); and (2) the subject complaint, while signed and sworn to by the offended party herself, is also signed by the special counsel, as public prosecuting officer, who retained supervision and control of the case for the State and in fact conducted the cross-examination of the witnesses for the defense and the presentation of the rebuttal witness for the prosecution. Besides, the technical objection raised by the defense should have been deemed waived under those circumstances and at that late stage of the case.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings, with costs against Defendant-Appellee.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., on official leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25153 October 4, 1968 - ANTONIO CLEMENTE v. BERNARDINO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. L-25461 October 4, 1968 - DY CHUN, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23319 October 7, 1968 - LUZON GLASS FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24680 October 7, 1968 - JESUSA VDA. DE MURGA v. JUANITO CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-24797 October 8, 1968 - SOUTHWEST AGRICULTURAL MARKETING CORP. v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25724 October 8, 1968 - FILIPRO, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-25573 October 11, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. MINERVA I. PIGUING

  • G.R. No. L-18793 October 11, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO PANTOJA

  • G.R. No. L-25328 October 11, 1968 - NAWASA v. KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI NG NAWASA

  • G.R. No. L-21488 October 14, 1968 - LUCILA DE LA PAZ v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24802 October 14, 1968 - LIM KIAH v. KAYNEE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25607 October 14, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25332 October 14, 1968 - ARTURO T. UBARRA, ET AL. v. BISCOM EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25032 and L-25037-38 October 14, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. CEMENT WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21957 October 14, 1968 - LAURO ADAMOS, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25646 October 14, 1968 - GERVACIO VALENCIA v. CARMEN P. CRISOLOGO

  • G.R. No. L-22226 October 14, 1968 - PACIFIC TUG & SALVAGE CORPORATION OF PANAMA v. RAMON O. NOLASCO

  • G.R. No. L-20158 October 14, 1968 - CANDELARIO ALMENDRAS, ET AL. v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24139 October 14, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22504 October 14, 1968 - GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT FEDERICO GARLIT v. ERLINDA G. GARLIT

  • G.R. No. L-25726 October 21, 1968 - CESAR C. ALTAREJOS v. TEODORO K. MOLO

  • G.R. No. L-23454 October 25, 1968 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-22290 October 25, 1968 - EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON, ET AL. v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26242 October 25, 1968 - IN RE: JAMES Y. NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26398 October 25, 1968 - ELPIDIO TALASTAS v. CLEMENCO ABELLA

  • Adm. Case No. 501 October 26, 1968 - IN RE: ZACARIAS MANIGBAS

  • G.R. No. L-29648 October 26, 1968 - FRANCISCO SOCORRO v. NORA VARGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25301 October 26, 1968 - GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC. v. MARTA LIM-JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20973 October 26, 1968 - JOSE BELTRAN v. NICANOR CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-26863 October 26, 1968 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. CO BAN LING & SONS CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25411 October 26, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26332 October 26, 1968 - SWEDISH EAST ASIA CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-27802 October 26, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24377 October 26, 1968 - FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. SOCORRO DANCEL VDA. DE MISA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24632 October 26, 1968 - LEXAL LABORATORIES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-19857 October 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. L-24695 October 26, 1968 - B.J. SERVER v. RICARDO SIKAT

  • G.R. No. L-21756 October 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORMAN VIÑAS

  • G.R. No. L-16995 October 28, 1968 - JULIO LUCERO v. JAIME L. LOOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26001 October 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27662 October 29, 1968 - MANILA PEST CONTROL, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 October 29, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16941 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO DEL CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17888 October 29, 1968 - RESINS INCORPORATED v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19069 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO PERALTA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20563 October 29, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. COLLECTOR (NOW COMMISSIONER) OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21115 October 29, 1968 - LINKOD JUANE, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-22046 October 29, 1968 - CHU HOI HORN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22252 October 29, 1968 - ELPIDIO MARCELO v. REYNALDO MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23270 October 29, 1968 - MARIA O. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO H. ENDAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23657 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23645 October 29, 1968 - BENJAMIN P. GOMEZ v. ENRICO PALOMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23893 October 29, 1968 - VILLA REY TRANSIT INC. v. EUSEBIO E. FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25888 October 29, 1968 - TIDEWATER OIL COMPANY v. ADELAIDA C. DIONISIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26047 October 30, 1968 - DONATO MATA v. DELFIN B. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26981 October 30, 1968 - IN RE: GLORIA GOMEZ v. RUFINO IMPERIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20398 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN GIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24530 October 31, 1968 - BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS, ET AL. v. BEATO GO CALLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18543 October 31, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GENERAL SALES SUPPLY CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20960-61 October 31, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE ACE LINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23708 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOCORRO MONGAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22403 October 31, 1968 - LUIS CASTRO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-23309 October 31, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24756 October 31, 1968 - CITY OF BAGUIO v. FORTUNATO DE LEON