Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > May 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-9625 May 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCA CELIS

101 Phil 586:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9625. May 27, 1957.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCA CELIS, Defendant-Appellant.

De Mesa and Navasca for Appellant.

Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; SLANDER; CRIME CHARGED DETERMINES JURISDICTION OF COURT TO TRY, CONVICT AND SENTENCE A DEFENDANT. — What confers jurisdiction upon a court to try, convict and sentence a defendant is not the filing of a complaint or information but the crime charged therein. The facts pleaded in the complaint filed in this case charged the crime of slander as defined and punished in the first clause of article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. The Municipal Court did not have jurisdiction to try the appellant upon the complaint filed by the offended party. Its verdict and sentence are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant should have raised in the Court of First Instance the question of nullity of the verdict and sentence; but instead of doing so she entered a plea of not guilty when arraigned and went ahead without objection with the trial, and after the offended party had testified she offered to withdraw her plea of not guilty to enter one of guilty, upon which the sentence appealed from was rendered. The trial court entered upon and exercised its original jurisdiction when it tried and sentenced the appellant.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


Francisca Celis was charged with slander in the Municipal Court of Manila, in a complaint subscribed and sworn to on 7 July 1955 by Dominga B. Mutya and filed on 12 July 1955, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 9th day of June, 1955, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and publicly utter and proffer slanderous words and expressions against the undersigned complainant such as "Puta ka ina-asawa ka ng asawa ko sa cuarto namin. Akala mo hindi na ako babalik kaya ikao pumatol sa asawa ko," and other expressions of similar import, thereby bringing the said undersigned into public contempt, disgrace, dishonor and ridicule. (Case No. D-45987.)

Upon arraignment, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty and after trial the court found her guilty of slander as provided for in Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced her to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the costs. The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance where it was docketed as Case No. 32104. The defendant was arraigned under the same complaint filed in the Municipal Court and again she entered a plea of not guilty.

The offended party Dominga B. Mutya testified that on June 9, 1955 at about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon while she was in her room at the second floor of the house situated at 2531 R. Fernandez, Tecson, Tondo, Manila, she was called by her landlady Dionisia Tiongson who said that the accused was uttering bad words against her. When she went down and asked why, the accused told her "Nagmamaangmaangan ka pa. Hindi ba ina-asawa ka ng asawa ko sa cuarto namin? Akala mo yata hindi na ako babalik kaya ka pumatol sa asawa ko." These words, translated into English, mean "You pretend to be innocent. Is it not true that my husband was having sexual intercourse with you in our bedroom? Probably, you thought that I would not come back, that is why you acceded to the desires of my husband." These words were uttered publicly and in a loud voice in the presence of Leticia Torres, Flordeliza Limjeuco and Dionisia Tiongson, the landlady of the offended party. The offended party answered "Baka ikaw," meaning "May be you are the one." Whereupon, the accused grabbed the offended party by the hair. At this juncture, the husband of the accused arrived and separated the combatants. He brought the accused to their house which was just behind the residence of the offended party. In their house, the accused kept on uttering bad and insulting words against the offended party in the presence of their neighbors who gathered in front of the house listening to her.

At 4:00 o’clock that afternoon, the husband of the accused who owns a jeep for hire was driving the jeep. Upon passing in front of the residence of the offended party who was then in the dress shop on the first floor of the house where she was residing, the husband of the accused turn his face towards the dress shop. He was seen by the accused who immediately shouted the following words "Talagang hindi maaring hindi ka lumingon sa puta," which words, translated into English, mean "It is really impossible for you not to look at the prostitute." Following the uttering of those words, the accused went in front of the dress shop where the offended party was and said, referring to the offended party "Talagang makapal ang mukha ng babaeng iyan," which, translated into English, mean "That woman is really shameless." The offended party told her to come nearer if what she was saying was true. The accused answered "I will and why not? I really saw my husband having sexual intercourse with you in our room." These words were uttered in the presence of many persons.

After the accused (the complainant) was cross-examined, counsel for the accused, after conferring with her, manifested that it is the desire of the accused to withdraw her plea of not guilty and to substitute it with a plea of guilty and made a motion to that effect. The court granted the motion and, upon re-arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty to the information. (Decision of the Court of First Instance.) .

Whereupon the Court found the defendant guilty of serious oral defamation and sentenced her to 4 mouths and 1 day of arresto mayor and to pay the costs. The defendant has appealed, assigning the following errors claimed to have been committed by the trial court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the offense of serious oral defamation instead of simple defamation penalized under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.

2. The Court erred in imposing on the defendant appellant the penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor.

The appellant contends that the complaint subscribed and sworn to by the offended party charged only slight or simple slander as provided for in the last clause of article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, because according to her it was filed in the Municipal Court where after trial she was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment, and costs; that on appeal the Court of First Instance could not find her guilty of a more serious offense, because according to her it the complaint charged a more serious crime the Municipal Court did not have jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence her for such more serious offense; and that the Court of First Instance as an appellate court had jurisdiction only to dismiss the appeal and the complaint filed in the Municipal Court and not to try her upon such complaint.

What confers jurisdiction upon a court to try, convict and sentence a defendant is not the filing of a complaint or information but the crime charged therein. The facts pleaded in the complaint filed in this case charged the crime of slander as defined and punished in the first clause of article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. The Municipal Court did not have jurisdiction to try the appellant upon the complaint filed by the offended party. Its verdict and sentence are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant should have raised in the Court of First Instance the question of nullity of the verdict and sentence; but instead of doing so she entered a plea of not guilty when arraigned and went ahead without objection with the trial, and after the offended party had testified she offered to withdraw her plea of not guilty to enter one of guilty, upon which the sentence appealed from was rendered. The trial court entered upon and exercised its original jurisdiction when it tried and sentenced the Appellant.

There being no modifying circumstance the penalty to be imposed is in its medium period, or 1 year and 1 day to 1 year and 8 months of prision correccional; and pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty is 1 month and 1 day of arresto mayor and the maximum, 1 year and 8 months of prision correccional and the accessories of the law.

Modified as to penalty only the sentence appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.




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






May-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9439 May 17, 1957 - CANDIDO BUENA v. HON. JUDGE JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL

    101 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. L-10760 May 17, 1957 - LY GIOK HA, ET AL v. EMILIO L. GALANG, ET AL

    101 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-9080 May 18, 1957 - TAN SONG SIN v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-9350 May 20, 1957 - CEBU PORT LABOR UNION v. STATES MARINE CORP. ET AL

    101 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-9736 May 20, 1957 - PANGASINAN TRANS., CO., ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. L-10759 May 20, 1957 - LEONARDO MONTES v. CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-9353 May 21, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. BATU CONSTRUCTION & CO.

    101 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. L-8886 May 22, 1957 - A. SORIANO Y CIA. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-9626 May 22, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO ALVAREZ

    101 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. L-9911 May 22, 1957 - PRISCILA DURANG-PARANG JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-9997 May 22, 1957 - RICARDO CUA v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS

    101 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. L-8721 May 23, 1957 - TRANQUILINO CACHERO v. MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC.

    101 Phil 523

  • G.R. Nos. L-8848-58 May 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN CANSON, ET AL

    101 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. L-8987 May 23, 1957 - JAPANESE WAR NOTES CLAIMANTS ASSO. OF THE PHIL. v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COM.

    101 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. L-9448 May 23, 1957 - ASELIDES MARCELO, ET AL v. PHIL., NAT’L. RED CROSS, ET AL

    101 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. L-9656 May 23, 1957 - CHANG KIM TIMOTEO VERGEL DE DIOS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. L-9912 May 23, 1957 - ROMULO CUYO v. CITY MAYOR, BAGUIO CITY, ET AL

    101 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-9558 May 24, 1957 - LEONCIO MONGE, ET AL v. LINO ANGELES, ET AL

    101 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-9641 May 24, 1957 - WACK WACK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

    101 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-10793 May 24, 1957 - MANILA TERMINAL CO.INC. v. JESUS O. HIPONIA, ET AL

    101 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-9789 May 25, 1957 - FERNANDO E. RICAFORT v. HON. WENCESLAO L. FERNAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-9625 May 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCA CELIS

    101 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. L-10213 May 27, 1957 - PERFECTO DIMAYUGA, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. L-10427 May 27, 1957 - EULOGIO MILL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-10789 May 28, 1957 - AMADOR TAJANLANGIT, ET AL v. SOUTHERN MOTORS, INC., ET AL

    101 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-10823 May 28, 1957 - JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL v. HON. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-8298 May 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO GARCIA

    101 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. L-9007 May 29, 1957 - GREGORIO FURIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    101 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-9193 May 29, 1957 - EUGENIO PEREZ v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. L-9224 May 29, 1957 - DY SUAT HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-9659 May 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIANO M. VALENSOY

    101 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-9775 May 29, 1957 - CITY OF BACOLOD, ET AL v. HON. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. L-9858 May 29, 1957 - IN RE: ONG SON CUI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-9888 May 29, 1957 - GRADY EDWARD JOHNSON v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    101 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-9960 May 29, 1957 - ROSITA ARCAS DE MARCAIDA v. THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO.

    101 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-10150 May 29, 1957 - FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. v. VICENTE TUPAS, ET AL.

    101 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. L-10594 May 29, 1957 - PONCIANO PRIMERO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    101 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-10664 May 29, 1957 - CRISTOBAL CAYABYAB v. LUIS T. CAYABYAB

    101 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-10710 May 29, 1957 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. HON. JUDGE JOSE TEODORO, SR., ET AL.

    101 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-9683 May 30, 1957 - Ong Tan v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. L-10807 May 30, 1957 - VITALIANO M. CRUZ v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    101 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-8894 May 31, 1957 - MARIA MATIAS DE BAUTISTA v. JOSE TEODORO, JR.

    101 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-9159 May 31, 1957 - FELIPE QUIRINO v. PHIL. NAT. BANK, ET AL.

    101 Phil 705

  • G.R. Nos. L-9738 & L-9771 May 31, 1957 - BLAS GUTIERREZ v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    101 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-10304 May 31, 1957 - SUN UN GIOK v. HERMOGENES MATUSA, ET AL.

    101 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-11201 May 31, 1957 - CIRILA NOCON v. HON. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    101 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957 - LAO H. ICHONG, ET AL v. JAIME HERNANDEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 1155