Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 124 views

    Ramon vs. PP, GR #226454

    Uploaded by

    Nikay Serdeña
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines modified the conviction of Digna Ramos from Grave Oral Defamation to Slight Oral Defamation. [1] Ramos was found guilty by the lower courts of uttering defamatory remarks against Patrocinia Dumaua. [2] While defamatory words were said, the Supreme Court found they were made in anger and with some provocation, making the crime Slight rather than Grave. [3] Ramos was ordered to pay a fine of ₱200, with subsidiary imprisonment if unpaid, and ₱5,000 in moral damages to Dumaua plus legal interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ramon vs. PP, GR #226454

    Uploaded by

    Nikay Serdeña
    124 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines modified the conviction of Digna Ramos from Grave Oral Defamation to Slight Oral Defamation. [1] Ramos was found guilty by the lower courts of uttering defamatory remarks against Patrocinia Dumaua. [2] While defamatory words were said, the Supreme Court found they were made in anger and with some provocation, making the crime Slight rather than Grave. [3] Ramos was ordered to pay a fine of ₱200, with subsidiary imprisonment if unpaid, and ₱5,000 in moral damages to Dumaua plus legal interest.

    Original Title

    20. Ramon vs. PP, GR #226454

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines modified the conviction of Digna Ramos from Grave Oral Defamation to Slight Oral Defamation. [1] Ramos was found guilty by the lower courts of uttering defamatory remarks against Patrocinia Dumaua. [2] While defamatory words were said, the Supreme Court found they were made in anger and with some provocation, making the crime Slight rather than Grave. [3] Ramos was ordered to pay a fine of ₱200, with subsidiary imprisonment if unpaid, and ₱5,000 in moral damages to Dumaua plus legal interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    124 views2 pages

    Ramon vs. PP, GR #226454

    Uploaded by

    Nikay Serdeña
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines modified the conviction of Digna Ramos from Grave Oral Defamation to Slight Oral Defamation. [1] Ramos was found guilty by the lower courts of uttering defamatory remarks against Patrocinia Dumaua. [2] While defamatory words were said, the Supreme Court found they were made in anger and with some provocation, making the crime Slight rather than Grave. [3] Ramos was ordered to pay a fine of ₱200, with subsidiary imprisonment if unpaid, and ₱5,000 in moral damages to Dumaua plus legal interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    226454 DIGNA RAMOS, Petitioner

    vs.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

    FACT:

    That on about 4:20 o'clock in the afternoon of 17th September 2003 at barangay Centro Norte, Sto.
    Niño, Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with ill
    motive, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, uttered defamatory remarks against
    the honor and reputation of the undersigned complaint Mrs. Patrocinia R. Dumaua, the following words
    and/or phrases address (sic) to the undersigned complainant "UKININAM, PUTA, AWAN AD-ADAL MO"
    which if translated in the English language would mean, "VULVA OF YOUR MOTHER, PROSTITUTE,
    ILLITERATE."

    The MCTC issued a Decision dated May 15, 2009, the MCTC found Ramos guilty beyond reasonable
    doubt of the crime of Grave Oral Defamation. Aggrieved, she appealed to the Regional Trial Court of
    Tuao, Cagayan, Branch 11 (RTC).

    In a Decision12 dated September 4, 2014, the RTC affirmed the MCTC ruling in toto. It found that the
    prosecution has indeed established the fact that Ramos uttered defamatory statements of a serious and
    insulting nature against Dumaua.

    In a Decision16 dated March 29, 2016, the CA affirmed the rulings of the courts a quo, with
    modification, adjusting Ramos' s period of imprisonment to four (4) months of arresto mayor, as
    minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum, in accordance with
    the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

    ISSUE:

    • Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Ramos' s conviction for the crime of Grave
    Oral Defamation.

    RULING:

    Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court deems it proper to modify Ramos's conviction, as will
    be explained below.

    Article 358 of the RPC defines and penalizes the crimes of Serious Oral Defamation and Slight Oral
    Defamation, to wit:

    Article 358. Slander. - Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to
    prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise, the penalty
    shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

    In De Leon v. People,25 the Court thoroughly discussed the nature of Oral Defamation and the
    parameters for classifying the same as either Grave or Slight:

    Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. It is
    defined as "the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his
    reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood." The elements of oral defamation are: (1)
    there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
    status or circumstances; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) and maliciously; (5) directed to a natural or
    juridical person, or one who is dead; (6) which tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of the
    person defamed. Oral defamation may either be simple or grave. It becomes grave when it is of a
    serious and insulting nature.

    Thus, it may safely be concluded that while Ramos indeed said defamatory words against Dumaua, the
    utterances were made in the heat of anger and were with some sort of provocation on the part of the
    latter. As such, the Court is constrained to hold that Ramos is only guilty of the crime of Slight Oral
    Defamation.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated March 29, 2016 and the Resolution
    dated August 10, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36970 is hereby MODIFIED, finding
    petitioner Digna Ramos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt only of the crime of Slight Oral Defamation
    defined and penalized under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, she is meted with the
    penalty of a FINE in the amount of ₱200.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
    ordered to pay private complainant Patrocinia Dumaua the amount of ₱5,000.00 as moral damages plus
    legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until
    fully paid, and the costs of suit.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy