Slander (Art. 358) Escolango, a candidate for Vice Mayer in the next elections, was c onversing with his political leaders at the terrace of his home when Pader (a political opponent of Escalango) – drunk, angry at his neighbor, Escolango, for something that Escolango had done when Pader’s father died – appeared at Escolango’s gate and shouted, “putang ina mo Atty. Escolango. Napakawalanghiya mo!” Escolango filed a complaint charging Pardo of having committed grave oral defamation. The MTC convicted Escolango as charged, which conviction was affirmed by the RTC and then by the CA. – the SC held that Pader was only guilty of slight oral defamation, not serious oral defamation. The SC concluded that the defamatory words were uttered by Pader out of resentment, not necessarily out of an intent to insult Escolango.
Defamatory words will fall under slight or serious oral defamation, depending not only upon their , , and judging them separately, but also upon the , or , which might tend to prove . is a common enough utterance in the dialect that is often employed, . In fact, more often, it is just an expletive that punctuates one’s expression of profanity.
Atty. Benjamin Escolango (ESCOLANGO) was a candidate for vice mayor of Morong, Bataan in the 8 May 1995 Elections. 9p, 20 Apr 1995: Escolango was conversing with his political leaders at the terrace of his house. o
IMPORTANT NOTES: The SC pointed out the following in its ratio : Escolango and Pader were neighbors; On the evening of 20 Apr 1995, Pader was drunk; d runk; and, Pader was angry at Escolango because of something that Escolango had done when Pader’s father had died. (The SC did not elaborate el aborate on the incident.) Escolango filed a complaint against Pader for grave oral defamation, with the MTC of Bagac, Bataan. (1 mo., 1 day to 1 yr. imprisonment; P20k as Moral Damages [MD], considering Escolango’s social standing and professional stature.) o
(4 mos., 1 day of AM)
1.
SEE: DOCTRINE (Factors determining whether defamatory words qualify as slight or serious oral defamation.) What the MTC considered: that the defamation was deliberately done to destroy d estroy Atty. Escolango’s reputation – since Pader was a political opponent of Escolango. Case at bar: there was only slight oral defamation, not serious oral defamation, as found by the lower courts. o What the MTC failed to appreciate: SEE FACTS, “IMPORTANT NOTES” DODOT
Slander
o
SC: “We do not find it seriously insulting that after a previous incident involving his father, a drunk Rogelio Pader on seeing Atty. Escolango would .” SEE: DOCTRINE (On “putang ina mo” as an expression of anger.)
Being a candidate for vice mayor, occasional gestures and words of disapproval or dislike of his person are NOT uncommon. On propriety of the award of MD: improper – MTC erred in awarding MD without proof of suffering.
WHEREFORE, we resolve to DENY the petition. However, we set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21710 and find petitioner Rogelio Pader guilty only of slight oral defamation. We impose on him a fine of P200.00 and costs.
DODOT
Slander