G.R. No. 163181 October 19, 2005
BONIFACIO L. CAÑAL, SR., Petitioner,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Emelinda, Daylinda’s witness, declared that while she was outside the courthouse she saw Bonifacio and clearly overheard him say in Filipino: “Why should you be afraid of Daylinda’s witnesses, they are all nincompoops. Daylinda is a thief! She has been long eking out a living as a thief.” A number of persons outside the courthouse also heard the utterances of Bonifacio.
The MCTC found the accused guilty of the crime grave oral defamation.
On appeal, the RTC rendered judgment affirming the decision of the MCTC.
The case was elevated to the CA via petition for review, and the appellate court affirmed in toto the RTC’s decision. Hence, this petition to the SC.
Whether or not the CA gravely erred in sustaining his conviction of the crime of grave oral defamation.
The petition is denied for lack of merit. However, the Court finds that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is erroneous. The penalty imposed by Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, for grave oral defamation is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period which has a duration of from four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months.
It must be remembered that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. And malice may be inferred from the style and tone of publication subject to certain exceptions which are not present. Indeed, calling Daylinda a thief is defamation against her character and reputation sufficient to cause her embarrassment and social humiliation. Daylinda testified to the feelings of shame and humiliation she suffered as a result of the incident complained of.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the CA is AFFIRMED WITH the MODIFICATION on his SENTENCE terms.