cases for fe

8/16/2019 Cases for FE

1/16

G.R. No. L-48183 November 10, 1941

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

RODOLFO A. SCHNECEN!"RGER, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Cardenas & Casal for appellants.

Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Acting Solicitor Luciano for appellee.

#ORAN, J.:

On March 16, 1926, the accused Rodolfo A. Schneckenburer !arried the co!pliant "lena Ra!ire# $artaena

and after seven %ears of !artial life, the% areed, for reason of alleed inco!patibilit% of character, to live

separatel% each other and on Ma% 2&, 19'& the% e(ecuted a docu!ent )hich in part recites as follo)s*

+ue a!bos co!parecientes convienen en vivir separados el uno del otro por el resto de su vida % se

co!pro!eten, % oblian reciproca!ente a no !olastarse ni intervenir ni !e#clarse bao ninun

concepto en la vida publica o privada de los !is!os, entre si, uendado cada uno de los otorantes

en co!pleta libertad de accion en caluier acto % todos concepto.

On une 1&, 19'&, the accused Schneckenburer, )ithout leavin the /hilippines, secured a decree of divorce

fro! the civil court of uare#, 0ravos istrict, State of $hihuahua, Me(ico. On Ma% 11, 19'6, he contracted

another !arriae )ith his co-accused, ulia Medel, in the ustice of the peace court of Malabon, Ri#al, and

since then the% lived toether as husband and )ife in the cit% of Manila. 0ecause of the nullit% of the divorce

decreed b% the Me(ico $ourt, co!plaint herein instituted t)o actions aainst the accused, one for bia!% in

the $ourt of irst 3nstance of Ri#al and the other concubinae in the court of irst 3nstance of Manila. 4he first

cul!inated in the conviction of the accused for )hich he )as sentenced to penalt% of t)o !onths and one da%

of arresto mayor . On the trial for the offense of concubinae accused interposed the plea of double eopard%,

and the case )as dis!issed5 but, upon appeal b% the fiscal, this $ourt held the dis!issal before the trial to be

pre!ature this )as under the for!er procedure and )ithout decidin the uestion of double eopard%,

re!anded the case to the trial court for trial on the !erits. Accused )as convicted of concubinae throuh

reckless i!prudence and sentenced to a penalt% of t)o !onths and one da% of arresto mayor . ence this

appeal.

As to appellant7s plea of double eopard%, it need onl% be observed that the office of bia!% for )hich he )as

convicted and that of concubinae for )hich he stood trial in the court belo) are t)o distinct offenses in la)

and in fact as )ell as in the !ode of their prosecution. 4he celebration of the second !arriae, )ith the first still

e(istin, characteri#es the cri!e of bia!%5 on the other hand, in the present case, !ere cohabitation b% the

husband )ith a )o!an )ho is not his )ife characteri#es the cri!e of concubinae. 4he first in an offense

aainst civil status )hich !a% be prosecuted at the instance of the state5 the second, an offense aainst

chastit% and !a% be prosecuted onl% at the instance of the offended part%. And no rule is !ore settled in la)

than that, on the !atter of double eopard%, the test is not )hether the defendant has alread% been tried for the

sa!e act, but )hether he has been put in eopard% for the sa!e offense. 8ia# v. . S., 22' . S., :225

/eople v. $abrera, :' /hil., ;2<

pon the other hand, )e believe and so hold that the accused should be acuitted of the cri!e of concubinae.

4he docu!ent e(ecuted b% and bet)een the accused and the co!plaint in )hich the% areed to be =en

co!pleta libertad de accion en cualuier acto % en todos conceptos,= )hile illeal for the purpose for )hich it

)as e(ecuted, constitutes nevertheless a valid consent to the act of concubinae )ithin the !eanin of section


2/16

':: of the Revised /enal $ode. 4here can be no doubt that b% such aree!ent, each part% clearl% intended to

foreo to illicit acts of the other.

>e said before 8/eople vs. ?uinucod, &; /hil., 621< that the consent )hich bars the offended part% fro!

institutin a cri!inal prosecution in cases of adulter%, concubinae, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of

lasciviousness is that )hich has been iven e(pressl% or i!pliedl% after the cri!e has been co!!itted. >e are

no) convinced that this is a narro) vie) in )a% )arranted b% the lanuae, as )ell as the !anifest polic%, ofthe la). 4he second pararaph of article ':: of the Revised /enal $ode provides*

4he offended part% cannot institute cri!inal prosecution )ithout includin both the uilt% parties, if the%

are both alive, nor, in an% case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. 8"!phasis

ours.<

As the ter! =pardon= unuestionabl% refers to the offense after its co!!ission, =consent= !ust have been

intended areeabl% )ith its ordinar% usae, to refer to the offense prior to its co!!ission. @o loical difference

can indeed be perceived bet)een prior and subseuent consent, for in both instances as the offended part%

has chosen to co!pro!ise )ith hisher dishonor, heshe beco!es un)orth% to co!e to court and invoke its aid

in the vindication of the )ron. or instance, a husband )ho believers his )ife another !an for adulter%, is as

un)orth%, if not !ore, as )here, upon acuirin kno)lede of the adulter% after its co!!ission, he sa%s ordoes nothin. >e, therefore, hold that the prior consent is as effective as subseuent consent to bar the

offended part% fro! prosecutin the offense.

3n this arrivin at this conclusion )e do not )ith to be !isconstrued as leali#in an aree!ent to do an illicit

act, in violation of la). Our vie) !ust be taken onl% to !ean that an aree!ent of the tenor entered into

bet)een the parties herein, operates, )ithin the plain lanuae and !anifest polic% of the la), to bar the

offended part% fro! prosecutin the offense. 3f there is an%thin !orall% conde!nator% in a situation of his

character, the re!ed% lies not )ith us but )ith the leislative depart!ent of the overn!ent. >hat the la) is,

not )hat it should be, defines the li!its of our authorit%.

ud!ent is reversed and the accused is hereb% acuitted, )ithout costs.

Avanceña C.!. A"ad Santos #iaz and $orilleno !!. concur.

###############

A.#. No. RT$-0%-1&'3 A()(*+ 11, %004

ED"ARDO P. DIEGO, co!plainant,vs.$"DGE SILERIO . CASTILLO, REGIONAL TRIAL CO"RT, DAG"PAN CIT, !RANCH 43, respondent.

" $ 3 S 3 O @

A/C"NA, J .


3/16

4his is an ad!inistrative co!plaint aainst Reional 4rial $ourt ude Silverio +. $astillo for alleedl%kno)inl% renderin an unust ud!ent in a cri!inal case andor renderin ud!ent in ross inorance of thela).

4he facts and circu!stances of the cri!inal case are su!!ari#ed, as follo)s*

a< On anuar% 9, 196&, accused Bucena "scoto contracted !arriae )ith ore de /erio, r.,sole!ni#ed before then Ma%or Biberato Re%na of aupan $it%. 4he couple )ere both ilipinos. 3n the!arriae contract, the accused used and adopted the na!e $rescencia "scoto, )ith a civil status ofsinle5

b< 3n a docu!ent dated ebruar% 1&, 19C;, deno!inated as a =ecree of ivorce= and purportedl%issued to ore de /erio as petitioner b% the a!il% istrict $ourt of arris $ount%, 4e(as82:Cth udicial istrict"R"OR", for failure of the S4A4" to prove accusedDs uilt be%ond )hisper of doubt, the $OR4hereb% orders her A$+344AB )ith costs de oficio.

SO OR"R".2

4he decision states that the !ain basis for the acuittal )as ood faith on the part of the accused. Respondentude ave credence to the defense of the accused that she acted )ithout an% !alicious intent. 4he co!binedtesti!onial and docu!entar% evidence of the defense )as ai!ed at convincin the court that accused Bucena"scoto had sufficient rounds to believe that her previous !arriae to ore de /erio had been validl%dissolved b% the divorce decree and that she )as leall% free to contract the second !arriae )ith Manuel /.ieo.

3n renderin the decision, respondent ude reasoned, thus*

>hile it is true that in our urisdiction the !atri!onial bond bet)een ore de /erio and the accusedare not %et annulled, it re!ains undisputed that cessation of the sa!e )as decreed in the a!il%istrict $ourt of arris $ount%, 4e(as, 2:Cth udicial istrict, effective ebruar% 1&, 19C;.

( ( (

4he $AR?" filed aainst the accused is cateori#ed as Mala en se 8sic< )hich reuires theindispensable presence of cri!inal intentdolo.

4he felon% on 03?AME as defined and penali#ed b% the Revised /enal $ode e(plicitl% !andates that it!ust be co!!itted )ith cri!inal intent. 3n other )ords, there !ust be an unuestionablede!onstration on the part of the perpetrator that heshe cri!inall%, )illfull% and unla)full% contracted asecond !arriae despite kno)lede that hisher first !arriae is still e(istin.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt1


4/16

As borne out b% the evidence adduced, the accused contracted the second !arriae after she )asinfor!ed and furnished of the ivorce ecree )hich )as ranted b% the a!il% istrict $ourt of arris$ount% 4e(as in her favor.

As an ordinar% la%)o!an accused bein a recipient of a divorce decree, she entertains the i!pressionthat she can contract a subseuent !arriae )hich she did )hen she !arried the late Manuel ieo.

4o the honest evaluation of the $ourt the act co!plained of aainst the accused is not patentl% illealfor the reason that she acted in ood faith believin that her !arriae )as alread% annulled b% aforein ud!ent.'

$o!plainant herein allees that the decision rendered b% the respondent ude is !anifestl% aainst the la)and contrar% to the evidence. e uestions the evidentiar% )eiht and ad!issibilit% of the divorce decree as abasis for the findin of ood faith. 3n addition, co!plainant stresses that the evidence on record neatesrespondent udeDs findin of ood faith on the part of the accused. 4hus, co!plainant ures this $ourt toi!pose sanctions upon respondent ude as, accordin to co!plainant, these acts a!ount to kno)inl%renderin an unust ud!ent andor ross inorance of the la).

3n his co!!ent, respondent ude e(plains that )hat )as in issue )as the cri!inal culpabilit% of the accusedunder Article ':9 of the Revised /enal $ode. Respondent ude does not dispute that the second !arriae

)as bia!ous because at the ti!e it )as contracted, the first !arriae )as still subsistin since divorce is notreconi#ed in our countr% and because the accusedDs first husband )as still alive. Respondent ude, ho)ever,!aintains that )hat )as controllin )as )hether b% virtue of the divorce decree the accused honestl% believed,albeit !istakenl%, that her first !arriae had been severed and she could !arr% aain. Accordin to respondentude, the sa!e is a state of !ind personal to the accused. e further stressed that kno)lede of the la)should not be e(acted strictl% fro! the accused since she is a la% person, and that ineptitude should not beconfused )ith cri!inal intent.

0% separate !anifestations, both parties areed to sub!it the case for resolution based on the pleadins.

4he isputed ecision

A careful stud% of the disputed decision reveals that respondent ude had been less than circu!spect in his

stud% of the la) and urisprudence applicable to the bia!% case.

3n his co!!ent, respondent ude stated* =4hat the accused !arried Manuel /. ieo in the honest belief thatshe )as free to do so b% virtue of the decree of divorce is a !istake of fact.=

4his $ourt, in %eople v. itdu,: carefull% distinuished bet)een a !istake of fact, )hich could be a basis for thedefense of ood faith in a bia!% case, fro! a !istake of la), )hich does not e(cuse a person, even a la%person, fro! liabilit%. itdu held that even if the accused, )ho had obtained a divorce under the Moha!!edancusto!, honestl% believed that in contractin her second !arriae she )as not co!!ittin an% violation of thela), and that she had no cri!inal intent, the sa!e does not ustif% her act. 4his $ourt further stated therein that)ith respect to the contention that the accused acted in ood faith in contractin the second !arriae, believinthat she had been validl% divorced fro! her first husband, it is sufficient to sa% that ever%one is presu!ed tokno) the la), and the fact that one does not kno) that his act constitutes a violation of the la) does not

e(e!pt hi! fro! the conseuences thereof.&

Moreover, suarel% applicable to the cri!inal case for bia!%, is %eople v. Schnec'en"urger , 6 )here it )asheld that the accused )ho secured a forein divorce, and later re!arried in the /hilippines, in the belief that theforein divorce )as valid, is liable for bia!%.

4hese findins not)ithstandin, the issue before us is )hether or not respondent ude should be heldad!inistrativel% liable for kno)inl% renderin an unust ud!ent andor ross inorance of the la).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt6


5/16

Fno)inl% Renderin an nust ud!ent

Fno)inl% renderin an unust ud!ent is a cri!inal offense defined and penali#ed under Article 2G:C of theRevised /enal $ode. or conviction to lie, it !ust be proved that the ud!ent is unust and that the udekno)s that it is unust. Fno)inl% !eans consciousl%, intellientl%, )illfull% or intentionall%. 3t is fir!l% establishedin this urisdiction that for a ude to be held liable for kno)inl% renderin an unust ud!ent, it !ust be sho)nthat the ud!ent is unust as it is contrar% to la) or is not supported b% the evidence, and that the sa!e )as!ade )ith conscious and deliberate intent to do an inustice.;

4he la) reuires that 8a< the offender is a ude5 8b< he renders a ud!ent in a case sub!itted to hi! fordecision5 8c< the ud!ent is unust5 8d< he kne) that said ud!ent is unust.9 4his $ourt reiterates that in order to hold a ude liable, it !ust be sho)n that the ud!ent is unust and that it )as !ade )ith conscious anddeliberate intent to do an inustice. 4hat ood faith is a defense to the chare of kno)inl% renderin an unust ud!ent re!ains the la).1G

As held in Alforte v. Santos,11 even assu!in that a ude erred in acuittin an accused, she still cannot bead!inistrativel% chared lackin the ele!ent of bad faith, !alice or corrupt purpose. Malice or bad faith on thepart of the ude in renderin an unust decision !ust still be proved and failure on the part of the co!plainantto prove the sa!e )arrants the dis!issal of the ad!inistrative co!plaint.12

4here is, therefore, no basis for the chare of kno)inl% renderin an unust ud!ent.

?ross 3norance of the Ba)

Anent the chare of ross inorance of the la), (añozca v. #omagas,1' is instructive. 4herein respondent ude )as chared )ith ross inorance of the la) resultin in a !anifestl% unust ud!ent for rantin ade!urrer to the evidence in a bia!% case. 4he rant of the de!urrer to the evidence )as based on the udeDs findin of ood faith on the part of the accused, anchored upon a docu!ent deno!inated as a=Separation of /ropert% )ith Renunciation of Rihts.= 4his $ourt stated that said act of the ude e(hibitedinorance of the la), and accordinl% he )as fined in the a!ount of /&,GGG.

Also, in Guillermo v. )eyes, !r.1: )here therein respondent ude )as iven a repri!and )ith a stern )arninof a !ore severe penalt% should the sa!e or si!ilar act be co!!itted in the future, this $ourt e(plained*

>e have heretofore ruled that a ude !a% not be held ad!inistrativel% accountable for ever%erroneous order or decision he renders. 4o unustifiabl% hold other)ise, assu!in that he has erred,)ould be nothin short of harass!ent and )ould !ake his position doubl% unbearable, for no onecalled upon to tr% the facts or interpret the la) in the process of ad!inisterin ustice can be infallible inhis ud!ent. 4he error !ust be ross or patent, !alicious, deliberate or in evident bad faith. 3t is onl%in this latter instance, )hen the ude acts fraudulentl% or )ith ross inorance, that ad!inistrativesanctions are called for as an i!perative dut% of this $ourt.

As a !atter of public polic% then, the acts of a ude in his official capacit% are not subect todisciplinar% action, even thouh such acts are erroneous. ?ood faith and absence of !alice, corrupt!otives or i!proper considerations are sufficient defenses in )hich a ude chared )ith inorance ofthe la) can find refue. 3t does not !ean, ho)ever, that a ude, iven the lee)a% he is accorded in

such cases, should not evince due care in the perfor!ance of his adudicator% preroatives.

urther!ore, in *ingarts v. (e+ia,1& )here therein respondent ude, althouh absolved of an% uilt for thechare of kno)inl% renderin an unust ud!ent, )as still i!posed sanctions b% this $ourt, thus*

3n an% event, respondent ude deserves to be appropriatel% penali#ed for his rerettabl% erroneousaction in connection )ith $ri!inal $ase @o. 266: of his court. >e have repeatedl% stressed that a!unicipal trial ude occupies the forefront of the udicial ar! that is closest in reach to the public heserves, and he !ust accordinl% act at all ti!es )ith reat constanc% and ut!ost probit%. An% kind offailure in the dischare of this rave responsibilit% cannot be countenanced, in order to !aintain the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt15


6/16

faith of the public in the udiciar%, especiall% on the level of courts to )hich !ost of the! resort forredress.16

Appl%in these precedents to the present case, the error co!!itted b% respondent ude bein ross andpatent, the sa!e constitutes inorance of the la) of a nature sufficient to )arrant disciplinar% action.

/enalt%

After evaluation of the !erits of the case, the Office of the $ourt Ad!inistrator 8O$A< reco!!ended thatrespondent ude be repri!anded )ith a stern )arnin of a !ore severe penalt% in the future.

4he act of respondent ude in renderin the decision in uestion took place on ebruar% 2:, 1999 or beforethe effectivit%, on October 1, 2GG1, of A.M. @o. G1-;-1G-S$ )hich classified ross inorance of the la) as aserious chare and penali#ed the offense )ith a fine of not less than /2G,GGG but not !ore than /:G,GGG.

Appl%in the rule as then prevailin,1C and in line )ith applicable urisprudence,1; the sanction on respondentude should be a fine in the a!ount of /1G,GGG.

HEREFORE, Reional 4rial $ourt ude Silverio +. $astillo is hereb% 3@" in the a!ount of 4en 4housand

/esos 8/1G,GGG< )ith a S4"R@ >AR@3@? that a repetition of the sa!e or si!ilar acts )ill be dealt )ith !oreseverel%.

SO ORDERED.

#avide !r. C.!. ,Chairman uisum"ing /nares-Santiago and Carpio !!. concur.

######################

G.R. No. 13'2&' $(e %0, %000

#ENARDO L. !ELTRAN, petitioner,

vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 5 HON. $"DGE FLORENTINO T"A/ON, $R., be6) +7e $(5)e o +7e

RTC, !r7 139, #:+6 C6+;, respondents.

!"ENA, J .

4his petition for revie), filed under Rule :& of the 199C Rules of $ivil /rocedure, seeks to revie) and set aside

the Order dated anuar% 2;, 1999 issued b% ude lorentino A. 4ua#on, r. of the Reional 4rial $ourt of

Makati $it%, 0ranch 1'9 in Special $ivil $ase @o. 9;-'G&6, entitled =Me%nardo 0eltran vs. /eople of the

/hilippines and on. ude Alden $ervantes of the Metropolitan 4rial $ourt of Makati $it%, 0ranch 61.= 4he

said Order denied petitioner7s pra%er for the issuance of a )rit of preli!inar% inunction to enoin ude

$ervantes fro! proceedin )ith the trial of $ri!inal $ase @o. 2'61C6, a concubinae case aainst petitioner

on the round that the pendin petition for declaration of nullit% of !arriae filed b% petitioner aainst his )ifeconstitutes a preudicial uestion.

4he antecedent facts of the case are undisputed*

/etitioner Me%nardo 0eltran and )ife $har!aine ". eli( )ere !arried on une 16, 19C' at the 3!!aculate

$oncepcion /arish $hurch in $ubao, +ue#on $it%.1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_137567_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/am_rtj_02_1673_2004.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_137567_2000.html#fnt1


7/16


8/16

of the latter pendin the final deter!ination of the civil case, it !ust appear not onl% that the said civil case

involves the sa!e facts upon )hich the cri!inal prosecution )ould be based, but also that in the resolution of

the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action, the uilt or innocence of the accused )ould necessaril%

be deter!ined.

Art. :G of the a!il% $ode provides*

4he absolute nullit% of a previous !arriae !a% be invoked for purposes of re!arriae on the basis

solel% of a final ud!ent declarin such previous !arriae void.

3n #omingo vs. Court of Appeals, 12 this $ourt ruled that the i!port of said provision is that for purposes of

re!arriae, the onl% leall% acceptable basis for declarin a previous !arriae an absolute nullit% is a final

ud!ent declarin such previous !arriae void, )hereas, for purposes of other than re!arriae, other

evidence is acceptable. 4he pertinent portions of said ecision read*

. . . ndoubtedl%, one can conceive of other instances )here a part% !iht )ell invoke the absolute

nullit% of a previous !arriae for purposes other than re!arriae, such as in case of an action for

liuidation, partition, distribution and separation of propert% bet)een the erst)hile spouses, as )ell as

an action for the custod% and support of their co!!on children and the deliver% of the latters7

presu!ptive leiti!es. 3n such cases, evidence needs !ust be adduced, testi!onial or docu!entar%,

to prove the e(istence of rounds renderin such a previous !arriae an absolute nullit%. 4hese needs

not be li!ited solel% to an earlier final ud!ent of a court declarin such previous !arriae void.

So that in a case for concubinae, the accused, like the herein petitioner need not present a final ud!ent

declarin his !arriae void for he can adduce evidence in the cri!inal case of the nullit% of his !arriae other

than proof of a final ud!ent declarin his !arriae void.

>ith reard to petitioner7s aru!ent that he could be acuitted of the chare of concubinae should his

!arriae be declared null and void, suffice it to state that even a subseuent pronounce!ent that his !arriae

is void fro! the beinnin is not a defense.

Analoous to this case is that of Landicho vs. )elova 1 cited in #onato vs. Luna 1: )here this $ourt held that*

. . . Assu!in that the first !arriae )as null and void on the round alleed b% petitioner, that fact

)ould not be !aterial to the outco!e of the cri!inal case. /arties to the !arriae should not be

per!itted to ude for the!selves its nullit%, for the sa!e !ust be sub!itted to the ud!ent of the

co!petent courts and onl% )hen the nullit% of the !arriae is so declared can it be held as void, and

so lon as there is no such declaration the presu!ption is that the !arriae e(ists. 4herefore, he )ho

contracts a second !arriae before the udicial declaration of nullit% of the first !arriae assu!es the

risk of bein prosecuted for bia!%.

4hus, in the case at bar it !ust also be held that parties to the !arriae should not be per!itted to ude for

the!selves its nullit%, for the sa!e !ust be sub!itted to the ud!ent of the co!petent courts and onl% )hen

the nullit% of the !arriae is so declared can it be held as void, and so lon as there is no such declaration the

presu!ption is that the !arriae e(ists for all intents and purposes. 4herefore, he )ho cohabits )ith a )o!an

not his )ife before the udicial declaration of nullit% of the !arriae assu!es the risk of bein prosecuted for

concubinae. 4he lo)er court therefore, has not erred in affir!in the Orders of the ude of the Metropolitan

4rial $ourt rulin that pendenc% of a civil action for nullit% of !arriae does not pose a preudicial uestion in a

cri!inal case for concubinae.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_137567_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_137567_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_137567_2000.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_137567_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_137567_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_137567_2000.html#fnt14


9/16

>"R"OR", for lack of !erit, the instant petition is 3SM3SS".

SO OR"R".

ellosillo (endoza uisum"ing and #e Leon !!. concur.

#########

G.R. No. 13389& $(r; %', %00&

DOLORES #AGNO, /etitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

" $ 3 S 3 O @

GARCIA, J.:

/etitioner olores Mano appeals fro! the March 12, 199; decision1 and Ma% 2G, 199; resolution2 of the $ourtof Appeals 8$A< in $A-?.R. $R @o. 16G'', affir!in an earlier decision of the Reional 4rial $ourt of 0auio$it% in $ri!inal $ases @o. ;;G:-R and ;;G6-R )hich found petitioner uilt% of t)o 82< counts of libel.

Records %ield the follo)in pertinent facts*

or around t)ent% 82G< %ears, petitioner olores Mano 8olores< and $erelito 4. Aleandro 8$erelito< havebeen neihbors at /uca% Hillae, Marcos ih)a%, 0auio $it%. 4he land on )hich the ManosD house standsabuts the Marcos ih)a%. 4he Aleandros, ho)ever, can access the hih)a% onl% b% traversin the ManosDpropert%. 4hru the %ears, the Manos had allo)ed the Aleandros the use of this passae )a% until oloresclosed the sa!e so!eti!e in 1991, purportedl% in retaliation to certain unsavor% alleations !ade b% $erelitoaainst the Manos and because of the deterioratin relationship bet)een the t)o fa!ilies.'

3n the afternoon of March 2, 1991, $erelito, )hile at the upper portion of his house, sa) olores )rite on the)all at the back of her arae the follo)in )ords* =ua 0urahin 0a)al u!aan ito an Maniac atMananaka) n Aso katulad ni $ere Bito O. $edrin.=

eelin that he )as the =$ere=, =Bito= or =$edrin= bein alluded to, $erelito reported the !atter to the localpolice and filed an affidavit-co!plaint )ith the iscalDs Office.

Subseuentl%, or on March 9, 1991, at around :*GG p.!., Rodelito, $erelitoDs 16-%ear old son, )hile on his )a%to bu% bread at a nearb% store, sa) olores )ritin so!ethin on her arae7s e(tension )all )ith the use of apaint brush and red paint. 3n full, the )ritin reads* =A? 0RA3@ 0A>AB MAA@ A@? SS/"4SOSA0AS4OS A4 MAFA/AB @A MFA 34O BABO @A SA MA@3A$ A4 MA?@A@AFA> @? ASO FA4BA @3$"R"B34O.= After readin )hat )as thus )ritten, Rodelito proceeded )ith his errand and, upon reachinho!e, related )hat he sa) to his father.:

Aain, feelin that he )as the !aniac and do thief bein referred to, $erelito lost no ti!e in filin a co!plaint)ith the 0auio $it% /olice 80$/


10/16

At around 12*2G p.!. of the sa!e da%, March 1&, 1991, olores handed to and instructed "vel%n Arcartado,$erelito7s sister, to deliver an unsealed )hite, lon, ordinar% envelope to e Aleandro, $erelito7s )ife. Since e)as out of the house at that ti!e, "vel%n ave the unsealed envelope to $erelito, )ho i!!ediatel% read thethree 8'< separate letters contained in the envelope. "vel%n follo)ed suit after)ards. e read the contents ofthe envelope upon reachin ho!e late in the afternoon of March 1&, 1991.C

4he first letter, unsined and undated; and )ritten on %ello) pad, )as addressed to spouses $erelito and e Aleandro. +uoted, in part, in the infor!ation in $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G6-R, this unsined letter reads*

3f %our husband can7t sho) an% proof of his !akatin dila then co!pl% I if %our husband can7t understand thissi!ple "nlish dahil !an!an, da%ukdok na alin sa isan kahi isan tukan pa!il%a at )alanpinaaralan, illiterate, !al educado ka%a bastos eh hua na ni%a ka!in ida!a% sa kani%an katanahan naala! na trabaho eh hu!a)ak n rasa sa Saudi. Fa%a i%on pa!babastos !o at padudu!i ni%a sa panalanna!in at hiit pa si%an !aru!i at putan ina rin ni%a. ?alin si%a sa pJ n babo% at hindi sa pJ n tao.ua ni%an iku!para an pinanalinan ni%a sa pinanalinan na!in. Si%a an !ananaka) at !andara%a.Malina) na ibidensi%a i%an kinala%an n hadan nin%o, di ba la!pas ka%o sa lote nin%o. /inalakad nin%o an!oon para lu!aki an lote nin%o. 0ao ka%o !asalita !a!bintan n kapitbaha% nin%o, tinan nin%o !unaan sarili nin%o. Mas !ukha pan !ananaka) an asa)a !o para !alina).

4he second letter is a photo-cop% of the first, but )ith the follo)in addendu! )ritten in ink at the back pae

thereof )hich reads*

An tiba% !o rin na!an Mrs. Aleandro, !akapal pa an !ukha !o at ika) pa an !apapablotter sa akinpara patakpan !o an !aniac !on asa)a. Failan !o !asasabi na pu!asok sa bakuran !o para!a!irhues%o sa in%o. 4ana.

4he third letter, a photo-cop% of oloresD sined letter 9 dated March 1&, 1991, supra, to the Sub-Station &$o!!ander of the 0$/ purportedl% in repl% to the state!ent iven b% e Aleandro to the police station onMarch ', 1991, reads in part as follo)s*

4he Sub Station $o!!ander Sub-Station &

Marcos ih)a%, 0.$.

ear sir*

((( ((( (((

Allo) !e then to e(plain to %ou . . . )h% 3 call Mr. Aleandro a !aniac. /u!asok si%a salote ko sa arahe na nain shelter 8te!porar%< na!in n pa!il%a ko pakatapos nlindol 8' )eeks after< n hatinabi-lasin na lasin nakapaa, bukas an #ipper npantaloon naka%apak na )alan sapin sa paa. 4ulo na ka!i. >e )ere a)akened b%the constant barkin of !% dos. 3 have ' native dos but 1 )as slauhtered b% Mr.$erelito Aleandro J. e is even a do-napper. M% Manan Bouie can relate the incidentsince )e )ere out of the countr% ( ( (. 3 don7t trust hi! as !% kapitbaha% na banta%

salaka%. 3n si!ple taalo !ananaka) n aso para !a% !ala!on dahil taka) nataka) at )alan !aibili.

3t is upon the foreoin factual backdrop that olores )as chared )ith libel under four 8:< separateinfor!ations filed )ith the Reional 4rial $ourt of 0auio $it%, docketed as $ri!inal $ases @o. ;;G'-R, ;;G:-R, ;;G&-R and ;;G6-R and raffled to 0ranch 6 of the court.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt9


11/16

4he infor!ation in $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G'-R )as based on oloresD letter dated March 1&, 1991 1G to the 0$/Sub-station $o!!ander e(plainin )h% she called $erelito a =!aniac,= )hereas the infor!ation in $ri!inal$ase @o. ;;G&-R arose out of the follo)in state!ent )ritten b% olores on March 2, 1991 at the back of herarae )all, vi#. =J 0a)al u!aan an Maniac at Mananaka) n aso katulad ni $erelito O. $edrin...=

4he accusator% portion of the infor!ation in $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G:-R reads in full as follo)s*

4hat on or about the 9th da% of March, 1991, in the $it% of 0auio, /hilippines, the above-na!ed accusedKolores ManoL, )ith deliberate and !alicious intent and evil !otive of i!peachin the reputation, virtue andinterit% of $"RK"LB34O 4. AB"A@RO, . . ., and )ith !alicious intent of e(posin the said $erelito Aleandroto public hatred, conte!pt, ridicule, discredit and dishonor, )ithout an% ustifiable !otive, did then and there)illfull%, unla)full% and feloniousl% and cri!inall% paint )ith brush in bold letters at the )all of the e(tension ofher arae, the follo)in defa!ator% )ords* =7A? 0RA3@ 0A>AB MAA@ A@? SS/"4SOSA0AS4OS A4 MAFA/AB A@? MFA 34O BABO @A SA MA@3A$ A4 MA?@A@AFA> @? ASO FA4BA @3$"R"B34O=, )hich aforesaid defa!ator%, !alicious and libelous state!ents have been read b% the public,)hen in truth and in fact said accused )ell kne) that the alleations are false, untrue and !alicious, thereb%causin dishonor, discredit, ridicule or conte!pt aainst the said $erelito Aleandro, to his da!ae andpreudice.

On the other hand, the infor!ation in $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G6-R reads*

4hat on or about the 1&th da% of March, 1991, in the $it% of 0auio, /hilippines, and )ithin the urisdiction ofthis onorable $ourt, the above-na!ed accused, )ith deliberate and !alicious intent and evil !otive ofi!peachin the reputation, virtue and interit% of $"R"B34O 4. AB"A@RO, a person of ood standin in theco!!unit%, and )ith !alicious intent of e(posin the said $erelito Aleandro to public hatred, conte!pt,ridicule, discredit and dishonor, )ithout an% ustifiable !otive, did then and there )illfull% and cri!inall% prepareand )rite a letter in %ello) pad paper addressed to herein co!plainant and his )ife, e Aleandro, in anunsealed envelope, the follo)in state!ents*

=3 EOR S0A@ $A@74 SO> A@E /ROO O 3S MAFA43@? 3BA 4"@ $OM/BE I 3 EORS0A@ $A@74 @"RS4A@ 43S S3M/B" "@?B3S A3B MA@?MA@?, AEFOF @?A ?AB3@?SA 3SA@? FA3? 3SA@? 4FA@? /AM3BEA A4 >ABA@? /3@A?-ARABA@, 3BB34"RA4", MAB "$AOFAEA 0AS4OS " A? @A @3EA FAM3@? 3AMAE SA FA@3EA@? FA4A@?AA@ @A ABAM @A 4RA0AO

" MA>AF @? ?RASA SA SA3. FAEA 3EO@? /AM0A0AS4OS MO A4 /A?M3 @3EA SA/A@?ABA@ @AM3@ A4 3?34 /A S3EA@? MARM3 A4 /4A@? 3@A R3@ @3EA. ?AB3@? S3EA SA /F3 @?0A0OE A4 3@3 /F3 @? 4AO, A? 3FM/ARA A@? /3@A@?AB3@?A@ @AM3@. S3EA A@?MA?@A@AFA> A4 MA@ARAEA. MAB3@A> @A 303"@S3EA 3EA@ F3@ABABA?EA@ @? A?A@ @3@EO,3 0A BAM/AS FAEO SA BO4" @3@EO. /3@ABAFA @3@EO A@? MOO@ /ARA BMAF3 A@? BO4"@3@EO. 0A?O FAEO MA?SAB34A MAM03@4A@? @? FA/340AAE @3@EO, 43?@A@ @3@EO M@A A@?SAR3B3 @3@EO. MAS MFA /A@? MA?@A@AFA> A@? ASA>A MO /ARA MAB3@A>

)hich aforesaid defa!ator%, !alicious and libelous )ords and state!ents have been read b% the public, )henin truth and in fact said accused )ell kne) that the alleations are false, untrue and !alicious, thereb% causindishonor, discredit, ridicule or conte!pt aainst the said $erelito 4. Aleandro, to his da!ae and preudice.

pon arrain!ent, olores, as accused, entered a plea of =@ot ?uilt%= to each of the offenses chared in thefour infor!ations aforecited.11 ollo)in a oint trial, the trial court rendered ud!ent on Septe!ber 2',

199',12findin her uilt% of libel in both $ri!inal $ases @os. ;;G:-R and ;;G6-R and sentencin her to sufferi!prison!ent and orderin her to inde!nif% the offended part% a certain su! as !oral da!aes. 3n $ri!inal$ases @os. ;;G'-R and ;;G&-R, ho)ever, she )as acuitted. 4he decretal portion of the trial courtDs decisionreads, as follo)s*

>"R"OR", ud!ent is rendered as follo)s*

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt12


12/16

1. 3n $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G'-R, the $ourt inds that the prosecution failed to prove the uilt ofaccused be%ond reasonable doubt and hereb% Acuits olores Mano of the offense of Bibel aschared. $osts de oficio.

4he bond of the accused in $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G'-R is cancelled and dischared.

2. 3n $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G:-R, the $ourt inds accused olores Mano ?uilt% be%ond reasonabledoubt of the offense of Bibel as chared and hereb% sentences her to an i!prison!ent ranin fro! '!onths and 11 da%s of Arresto Ma%or as Mini!u! to 1 %ear ; !onths and 21 da%s of /rision$orreccional as Ma(i!u!5 to inde!nif% the offended part% $erelito Aleandro the su! of /&,GGG.GG asMoral a!aes and the costs of suit.

'. 3n $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G&-R, the $ourt inds that the prosecution failed to prove the uilt ofaccused be%ond reasonable doubt and hereb% Acuits olores Mano of the offense of Bibel aschared. $osts de oficio.

4he bond of accused olores Mano in $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G&-R is cancelled and dischared.

:. 3n $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G6-R, the $ourt inds accused olores Mano ?uilt% be%ond reasonable

doubt of the offense of Bibel as chared and hereb% sentences her to an i!prison!ent ranin fro! '!onths and 11 da%s of Arresto Ma%or as Mini!u! to 1 %ear ; !onths and 21 da%s of /rision$orreccional as Ma(i!u!5 to inde!nif% the offended part% $erelito Aleandro the su! of /&,GGG.GG asMoral a!aes and the costs of suit.

SO OR"R".

issatisfied, olores )ent on appeal to the $A. 3n its ecision dated March 12, 199;,1' the appellate courtaffir!ed in toto the ud!ent of conviction of the R4$. 3t like)ise denied oloresD !otion for reconsideration inits Resolution dated Ma% 2G, 199;1: for lack of !erit.

ence, this appeal b% olores via the instant petition for revie).

olores ures her acuittal contendin that her conviction for libel in $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G:-R is predicatedon )hat she considers as the incredible testi!on% of the prosecutionDs principal )itness, Rodelito Aleandro.She clai!s that it is e(tre!el% difficult to believe that Rodelito, after seein the libelous )ritins on the )all atthe back of her arae, )ould proceed to bu% bread instead of reportin i!!ediatel% to his father. 3n oloresDo)n )ords* =3n the natural order of thins, or in the natural course of events, a son in the place of Rodelito)ould have one ho!e first to report the incident to his father, instead of oin so!e place to bu%bread.=1& /ressin on, she allees that father and son could not even aree as to the )hereabouts of the for!er in the afternoon of March 9, 1991, notin that, )hile $erelito testified bein at their house at that ti!e, Rodelitosaid his father )as not at the house the )hole da%.16

Shiftin to another point, olores states that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the ele!ents ofauthorship and publication of the !alicious )ritins on the )all, as )ell as the unsined letter addressed to thespouses Aleandro, referrin to "(hibit =-1=.1C

4he appeal is )ithout !erit

4he fa!iliar and )ell-entrenched doctrine is that the assess!ent of the credibilit% of )itnesses lies )ithin thearea and co!petence of the trier of facts, in this case, the trial court and, to a certain e(tent, the $A. 4hisdoctrine is based on the ti!e-honored rule that the !atter of assinin values to declarations on the )itnessstand is best and !ost co!!onl% perfor!ed b% the trial ude )ho, unlike appellate !aistrates, is in the bestposition to assess the credibilit% of the )itnesses )ho appeared before his sala as he had personall% heardthe! and observed their deport!ent and !anner of testif%in durin the trial.1; Succinctl% put, findins of fact of the trial court pertainin to the credibilit% of )itnesses co!!and reat )eiht and respect since it had the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt18


13/16

opportunit% to observe their de!eanor, conduct and attitude and is therefore placed in a !ore co!petentposition to discri!inate bet)een truth and falsehood.19

Heril%, the $ourt finds no reason to doubt the identification b% Rodelito of olores as the person )ho )rote onher araeDs e(tension )all the libelous )ritin = . . . Maniac at Mananaka) n Aso Fatulad ni $erelito.= 4hefact that Rodelito, upon )itnessin this particular incident, proceeded to bu% bread instead of i!!ediatel%infor!in his father of )hat occurred, does not, )ithout !ore, vitiate the for!erDs credibilit% a bit nor di!inishthe probabilities of the situation testified upon . As aptl% observed b% the $ourt of Appeals*

Anent the first aru!ent, it is not at all i!probable for Rodelito to proceed to bu% bread first before tellin hisfather of the incident. 4he fact that he did not i!!ediatel% o ho!e and tell his father )hat he )itnessed butinstead proceeded first to the store is not an unusual behavior for this $ourt to speculate or doubt )itness7credibilit%. As the records sho), such !alinin of $erelito7s person in public )as not the first ti!e for theKpetitionerL had priorl% 8sic< !ade insultin )ritins on her arae )all. 4hus, this second incident )itnessed b%Rodelito )as no loner a surprise for hi! )hich could have i!!ediatel% pro!pt 8sic< hi! to report it to hisfather. 8>ord in bracket added.<

Of little !o!ent, too, is the !inor variance in the respective testi!onies of Rodelito and $erelito on )hether ornot $erelito )as at his house in the eventful afternoon of March 9, 1991. ?iven RodelitoDs positive assertion of)hat and )ho he sa) at that ti!e, the e(act )hereabouts of $erelito hardl% assu!es an% decisive sinificance.

At an% rate, there is no irreconcilable inconsistenc% bet)een the testi!onies of Rodelito and $erelito. $erelitotestified that at the ti!e olores )as !akin the )ritins on the )all, he )as at the upper portion of theirhouse,2Gfor )hich reason, Rodelito probabl% )as not able to see hi! )hen he )ent out to bu% bread. 0ut lest itbe overlooked, the cited inconsistenc% bet)een the testi!onies of father and son are not of such !aterialit% tooverturn the positive identification of olores as the author of the )ritin on the )all in uestion. 3n fact, )ehave previousl% held that !inor discrepancies or inconsistencies in the declarations or testi!onies of )itnessesdo not affect, but even enhance their credibilit% for the% re!ove an% suspicion that the testi!onies )erecontrived or rehearsed. >hat is i!portant is that the testi!onies aree on essential facts and substantiall%corroborated a consistent and coherent )hole.21 >hat the $A said in this reard co!!ends itself forconcurrence*

Anent the second and third aru!ents )here KpetitionerL faults Rodelito7s testi!on% as sufferin fro! !aterialinconsistencies, the sa!e, if an%, !erel% refers to !inor points )hich do not detract fro! the credibilit% of histesti!on%. >hat is relevant is the fact that Rodelito sa) the KpetitionerL )rite the insultin )ritins and that heafter)ards infor!ed his father about it. >ell-settled is the rule that inconsistencies and contradictions )hich are!inor, trivial and inconseuential cannot i!pair, and on the contrar%, serve to strenthen the credibilit% of the)itness.22 8>ord in bracket added<

4his brins us to oloresD conviction in $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G6-R )here she insists on the absence of theele!ent of publication so vital in the prosecution for libel. 4o be liable for libel under Article '&' of the Revised/enal $ode, the follo)in ele!ents !ust be sho)n to e(ist* 8a< the alleation of a discreditable act or conditionconcernin another5 8b< publication of the chare5 8c< identit% of the person defa!ed5 and 8d< e(istence of!alice.2'

4here can be no uibblin about the defa!ator% nature of the )ritten i!putation or alleations hurled aainst$erelito. And the deroator% )ritins )ere obviousl% !ade out of ill-)ill or revene. 4he issue of defa!ation,!alice or the identit% of the person defa!ed is not even raised in this recourse.

As earlier recited, the infor!ation in $ri!inal $ase @o. ;;G6-R arose out of )hat olores )rote about thespouses $erelito and e Aleandro contained in an unsealed envelope and delivered, throuh "vel%n Arcartado, on March 1&, 1991. olores contends that, fro! the ti!e "vel%n )as ph%sicall% handed theunsealed envelope to the ti!e the latter turned it over to $erelito, no one opened or read the offendin lettercontained therein.2:/rescindin therefro!, olores arues aainst the e(istence of libel, citin, for the purpose, A!erican urisprudence holdin that =)here libelous !atter is co!!unicated onl% to a person defa!ed and hevoluntaril% discloses the contents of the libelous co!!unication to others, the oriinator of the libel is notresponsible for the publication.=2& olores arues that since the obno(ious letter )as addressed to spouses$erelito and e Aleandro, e )as, insofar as $erelito is concerned, not a third person for purposes of

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt25


14/16

publication. She further declares that to call the husband 8$erelito< a thief in connection )ith a chare that heand his )ife had stolen oods, is not to speak )ords of defa!ation of hi! alone so as to !ake the utterance inthe presence of his )ife a publication.

/ublication, in the la) of libel, !eans the !akin of the defa!ator% !atter, after it has been )ritten, kno)n toso!eone other than the person to )ho! it has been )ritten. 3f the state!ent is sent straiht to a person for)ho! it is )ritten there is no publication of it.26 4he reason for this is that =a co!!unication of the defa!ator%!atter to the person defa!ed cannot inure his reputation thouh it !a% )ound his self-estee!. A !anDsreputation is not the ood opinion he has of hi!self, but the esti!ation in )hich others hold hi!.=2C

3n /eople vs. Silvela,2; the $ourt ruled that sendin an unsealed libelous letter to the offended part% constitutespublication. 3n the present case, there is no dispute that the unsealed envelope containin the libelous letter)as handed b% olores to "vel%n Arcartado. $onte(tuall%, there )as a reasonable probabilit% that the contentsof the unsealed envelope, particularl% the libelous letter, could have been e(posed to be read b% "vel%n beforedeliverin the sa!e to $erelito. o)ever, "vel%n cateoricall% ad!itted not readin the letter at the firstinstance, readin it onl% after securin $erelitoDs per!ission. An e(cerpt of her testi!on%*

irect "(a!ination*

3S$AB $"@4"@O*

id %ou read the contents of the letter

A Ees, sir. 3 read it after !% brother had read it.

+ And )hat did %ou find out

A a!ain )ords.29

$ROSS "NAM3@A43O@

0E A44E. A?RA@AM"@"

+ On March 1&, 1991 at 12*2G /.M., as %ou said, %ou )ere called b% Mrs. Mano, is that correct A. Ees, sir.

+ And she handed an envelope, is that correct. A. Ees, sir.

+ And she told %ou to ive this envelope to %our sister-in-la)

A Ees, sir.

+ And because her instruction to %ou )as to ive the envelope to %our sister-in-la), %ou did not open theenvelope %ourself, correct

A @o, 3 did not, sir.

+ 0ut )hen %ou ot to %our house, %our sister-in-la) )as not there, is that correct A. Ees, sir.

+ And that is the reason )h% %ou ave it instead to %our brother, correct A. Ees, sir.

+ 0et)een the ti!e that Mrs. Mano ave %ou that envelope up to the ti!e %ou ave it to %our brother, %ou%ourself did not open it, correct. A. Ees, sir.'G

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_133896_2006.html#fnt30


15/16


16/16

inall%, the $ourt cannot ive credence to oloresD alleation that she is not the author of the unsined libelousletter. 3t cannot be overstressed that she herself handed the unsined letter to "vel%n Arcartado )ith specificinstructions to ive the sa!e to e Aleandro. Bike)ise, the contents of the letters are basicall%reiterationelaborations of oloresD previous )ritin on the )all and her letter to the 0$/ Sub-Stationco!!ander. >hat the $ourt of Appeals said on this point is basic co!!on sense and deservin of acceptance*

Anent the second assined error, KpetitionerL contends authorship of the unsined letters )as not proven. 4hiscontention is bereft of !erit. As keenl% observed b% the Solicitor ?eneral, said letters )ere positivel% identifiedas )ritten b% KpetitionerL b% reference to the contents thereof )hich are reiterations of her previous )ritins onthe )alls of her arae and her letter to the police. Moreover, the testi!on% of "vel%n that said unsealedenvelope ca!e fro! the KpetitionerL re!ain unrebutted. 4herefore, it appears that there )ould be no otherconclusion e(cept that KpetitionerL )as the author of the subect letter. 8>ords in bracket added.<

3n all, )e find all the ele!ents of libel to have been sufficientl% established. Accordinl%, the ascription ofreversible errors on the part of the $A and the trial court in adudin olores uilt% be%ond reasonable doubtof t)o counts of libel cannot be sustained.

>"R"OR", the petition is "@3", and the assailed decision of the $ourt of Appeals A3RM".

$osts aainst petitioner.

SO OR"R".

cases for fe

Documents