Noel was a councilor while Nora was the Vice Mayor of a municipality. They belong to opposite political camps. One time Noel asked Nora for the approval of his application to monetize his accrued leave credits. But Nora for no reason at all, except apparently as an offshoot of a political discord, refused to, or procrastinated in approving Noel’s application. To express his anger or displeasure at Nora’s action, Noel went to Nora’s office, confronted her in the presence of several persons mouthed the following disparaging remarks: "You are pretending to be clean and honest yet you are not clean and honest. You are like a red apple, you are worm infested inside and extremely dirty". At that instant, Nora hurled a bottle of coke at Noel and hit one of the Barangay Captains then present. This prompted Noel to point a dirty finger at Nora’s face aside from hurling such verbal insults.
Nora thus sued Noel for grave oral defamation and serious slander by deed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). After trial, the MCTC found Noel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged and sentenced him to imprisonment of 4 months and 1 day to 1 year in each case. It also ordered Noel to pay P50,000 moral damages, P30,000 expenses for litigation and attorney’s fees and P1,000 appearance fees. On appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the latter affirmed the findings of guilt but modified the sentence to 3 months minimum up to 2 years and 2 months maximum to be served successively. The RTC also ordered Noel to pay moral damages of P100,000 and P50,000 exemplary damages. On further appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter affirmed the RTC ruling but deleted the award of exemplary damages because the CA found that Noel himself was a victim of Nora’s indiscretion for refusing, for no reason at all to approve Noel’s application for monetization of the accrued leave credits. Were the ruling and sentence correct?
The ruling is correct in so far as it found Noel guilty of slander and slander by deed. But his offenses are not grave and serious. The gravity of the oral defamation depends not only upon the expressions used, but also on the personal relations of the accused and the offended party and the circumstances surrounding the case. Uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the part of the offended party constitutes only a light felony.
In the case at bar, Noel, who was holding the position of Councilor at that time is duty bound to be an exemplar to society against the use of intemperate language particularly because the offended party was a Vice Mayor. However such scathing words were uttered by him in the heat of anger triggered by the fact, as found by the CA, that Nora refused, without valid justification to approve the monetization of his accrued leave credits. In a manner of speaking Nora sowed the wind that reaped the storm. Considering this finding, the CA not only should have struck out the award of exemplary damage but should have modified as well the offense committed to be of simple nature or slight oral defamation punishable only by imprisonment of 1 to 30 days or a fine of P200. Noel should only be fined P200 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Following the same principle, the poking of dirty finger while it smacks of slander by deed is of lesser magnitude and is only slight slander by deed. Pointing a dirty finger connotes the phrase "Fuck You" or "putang ina mo" in local parlance. In one case such expression was even held to be not libelous because it is a common enough expression in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the virtues of a mother. Following this ruling, in the light of the fact that there was provocation coming from Nora, Noel’s act of pointing a dirty finger at her constitutes simple slander by deed punishable by imprisonment from one to 30 days or a fine not exceeding P200. Noel should likewise only be fined P200 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In similar fashion, considering that Nora and Noel belong to warring political camps, occasional gestures and words of disapproval or dislike are among the hazards of the job. This political reality, and the fact that the CA concluded that Noel himself was a victim of Nora’s indiscretion, her claim for damages and attorney’s fees must like wise fail. Akin to the principle that "he who comes to court must come with clean hands", each of the parties in the case at bar, must bear his or her own loss (Villanueva vs. People G.R. 160351, April 10, 2006).