[No. 46336.

September 29, 1939]

REVEREND ULRIC ARCAND, petitioner, vs. THE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; LIGHT ORAL

DEFAMATION; DEFENSE OF PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATlON.—In the case of United States vs. Cañete
(38 Phil., 253 et seq.), we said that "A communication made
bona fide upon any subject matter in which the party
communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has
a duty, is privileged, if made to a person having a
corresponding interest or duty, although it contained
criminatory matter which without this privilege would be
slanderous and actionable (Harrison vs, Bush, 6 E. & B., 344; 1
Jur. [N. S.], 846; 25 L. J. Q. B., 25; 3 W. R., 474; 85 E. C. L.,
344)." The defense of privileged communication, to be good,
must be based on the good faith of the person violating the law
or invoking the privilege. Speaking of oral defamation or
slander, the facts or circumstances under which the defamation
or slander was committed must show that the offender acted
without malice or in good faith. In the case under
consideration, the accused is not found in this situation and
cannot successfully plead that he acted in good faith and
without malice. Accepting all the facts invoked in justification
of his attitude, it appears clear that he was not justified in
defaming and discrediting from the pulpit the good name and -
reputation of the offended party.

PETITION for review on certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Godofredo Reyes for petitioner.
Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Amparo
for respondent.
602

602 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reverend Ulric Arcand vs. People

IMPERIAL, J.:
The accused was charged in the justice of the peace court of
Lucena, Province of Tayabas, with the light felony of oral
defamation defined and punished by article 358 of the
Revised Penal Code, for having insulted the offended party
from the pulpit of the Roman Catholic Church of said town,
calling him gangster No. 1 and saying that he would send
him to jail like gangster No. 2, referring to Antonio Nosce.
The accused pleaded not guilty but the justice of the peace
court, after due trial, found him guilty of said light felony
and sentenced him to pay a fine in the sum of P20, with the
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, plus the costs. He appealed to the Court of
.First Instance of the province wherein he likewise pleaded
not guilty, and after due trial he was convicted of the same
offense and sentenced to pay a fine of P150, with the
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, plus the costs of both instances. He again
appealed to the Court of Appeals and said court modified
the judgment appealed from by sentencing him to pay a
fine of P100, affirming it in all other respects, with costs.
The accused appealed for the third time to this court.
The facts of the case are summarized by the Court of
Appeals as follows:

"The accused in this case, Reverend Ulric Arcand, had been

designated by the Bishop of the Diocese of Lipa to take personal
charge of the spiritual guidance of the catholic youth of Lucena,
capital of the Province of Tayabas, by teaching them the doctrine
and principles of their religion. For one reason or another, the
truth is that the accused had provoked hostility and discontent
not only among some elements of Lucena not affiliated with the
Catholic church but even among catholics themselves. This
hostility and discontent took the form of public parades including
violence committed on the person of the accused. In fact, on the
afternoon of December 3, 1933, one Antonio Nosce went to the
vicinity of the Lucena church and, upon meeting the accused
therein, he slapped

603

VOL. 68, SEPTEMBER 29, 1939 603

Reverend Ulric Arcand vs. People

the latter, for which he was later prosecuted and convicted in

criminal case No. 5864. In this movement of protest against the
accused, it seems as if Aniceto Enriquez, the offended party in the
case at bar, also took part. The enmity between the accused and
the offended party must have been very strong since the former
had filed more than one complaint, f or threats, against the latter
with the office of the provincial fiscal of Tayabas, which
complaints, however, were not sustained by the fiscal's office
inasmuch as it refused to take action against Enriquez.
"Such was the state of affairs when, on November 25, 1934, the
feast of 'The Miraculous Virgin' was celebrated in Lucena. On this
occasion, Father Arcand mounted the pulpit to deliver the sermon
which, according to the evidence for the defense, dwelt on a
certain phase of the life of Jesus Christ. After developing his
theme, the orator proceeded to answer the written questions
dropped by the faithful into a box placed at the door of the church
and labeled 'Question Box'. The accused was engaged in this task
when all of a sudden the strains from a band playing outside the
church were heard. Thereupon, the accused stopped answering
the written questions of the faithful and addressed an exhortation
to his hearers, advising them not to be scandalized by said music
which, according to him, was dedicated to the feast of The
Miraculous Virgin and was not in any way a demonstration
against him, adding that during the public demonstration
organized against him the year bef ore, not more than sixty
persons took part, only four of whom were catholics, and that he
would take the necessary steps for the excommunion of three of
them. He further stated: 'I believe you will remember that for said
first demonstration, we sent to jail gangster No. 2 (alluding to
Antonio Nosce, who slapped him on December 3, 1933); now we
are going to send to jail gangster No. 1, that man Ceto (alluding to
the offended party who -was then outside the church, near the
door). I was with him in the office of the fiscal for more than three
hours yesterday.'

* * * * * * *

604

604 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reverend Ulric Arcand vs. People

"There is no dispute regarding the main facts that have given rise
to the present case. The defense does not deny that the accused,
on the occasion in question, uttered the defamatory words alleged
in the information. Nor is it denied that said words were
addressed to the offended party, Aniceto Enriquez. The accused
does not seriously nor positively deny that in the middle of his
sermon he called the offended party gangster No. 1, saying that
he would send him to jail as he did to gangster No, 2 (Antonio
Nosce), and that to this effect he had had a three-hour conference
with the provincial fiscal the day before. * * *"
We have transcribed the conclusions of fact arrived at by
the Court of Appeals because the same cannot be altered
and upon them must be based the conclusions of law which
will hereinafter be expounded (sec. 138, subsec. [6], of the
Revised Administrative Code, as amended by section 2 of
Commonwealth Act No. 3).
After the case had been decided by the Court of Appeals,
the accused, in a motion for reconsideration, asked said
court to make specific findings on the following facts:
"1. When the Bishop of Lipa designated the herein
accused Father Ulric Arcand, as a missionary, to take
charge of the religious instruction of the young students in
the town of Lucena, capital of Tayabas, a protestant
organization, the Young Men Christian Association, had a
monopoly of the religious proselytism among the youth of
said locality, As was to be expected, a bitter rivalry
immediately arose between the two organizations. A
harmless incident gave occasion for some evil-disposed
persons to excite public animosity against the accused
Father Arcand. Bonifacio Day was being celebrated in 1933
with a parade and a meeting. The parade was organized by
the residents in general, but the meeting was under the
auspices of the Y, M. C. A. (Testimony of Superintendent V.
Trinidad, page 174.) Father Arcand, in turn, prepared a
program at the Catholic Club, part of which was dedicated
to the same heroe Andres Bonifacio (testimony of the
accused, page 122). Father Arcand, in a speech delivered
prior to the arrival of the feast day, criticized the
605

VOL. 68, SEPTEMBER 29, 1939 605

Reverend Ulric Arcand vs. People

school authorities for compelling the students of the

public schools to attend the meeting patronized by
the Y. M. C. A. and went to the extent of advising
the youth not to attend said meeting (testimony of
the accused, page 125). This speech was distorted
by some people and Father Arcand was accused of
being anti-Filipino f or preventing the youth from
honoring the memory of Andres Bonifacio.
"2. Such was the state of affairs when a notorious
malefactor (who then had already been convicted in
Manila and Tayabas for having imprudently
embraced and kissed young women against their
will) slapped Father Arcand in the face at the door
of the church, while the latter was accompanying
 the Bishop who was on a visit to the parish
(criminal case No. 5864). This individual, Antonio
Nosce, was later sentenced to jail for the act
committed on that occasion. Before said incident
took place, an impromptu meeting had been held in
a cinema theater of the locality during which the
orators individually exploited the antiFilipinism of
the missioner Father Arcand in their speeches.
During the meeting, the herein complainant,
Aniceto Enriquez, carelessly said in a loud voice
that he would 'take charge of Father Arcand'
(criminal case No. 6684, pages .196-198).
"3. In the night of said day on which Father Arcand
was iniquitously maltreated at the door of the
church itself, the Bishop was in the convent taking
supper with several priests and residents when
shouts were heard from the street. The parish
priest Father Emilio Merchan went down, followed
by Mr. Casiano Sandoval (now governor of the
province), Mr. Antonio Marquez, Father Daete and
a brother of Father Merchan. On the street among
the crowd was the herein complainant Aniceto
Enriquez armed with a swagger stick with which he
attempted to slug Father Merchan on the head. If
he did not succeed in dealing the blow, it was due to
the timely intervention of Mr. Sandoval and Mr.
Marquez. While other residents, who rushed to the
scene, were taking away Aniceto Enriquez from
said place, the latter shouted at the top of his voice
that he was disposed to kill 'all the friars and all

606

606 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reverend Ulric Arcand vs. People

foreign priests who come here' (testimony of A.

Marquez, page 65; testimony of C. Sandoval, page
69). 'I am going to kill Father Arcand and all the
friars and white priests' (testimony of Father Daete,
page 91).
"4. Upon instructions from the Bishop, Mr. Antonio
Marquez and Father Daete went to ask for help at
the police headquarters which was separated from
the convent by only one street. The sole policeman
therein answered that he could not give them any
help because there was nobody to take his post
 (testimony of Antonio Marquez, page 65). Mr.
Marquez telephoned the Constabulary barracks but
there he was informed that according to their
regulations, they were not bound to leave their
barracks unless there was a 'clash or bloodshed'
(testimony of A. Marquez, page 67; testimony of
Father Daete, page 92).
"5. On the night of December 7, 1933, while Father
Arcand was about to go up the house of Attorney
Pedro Guevara for the purpose of rendering him
spiritual assistance because he was dying, the
herein 'offended party' Aniceto Enriquez followed
him and held him by the arm with the evident
intention of assaulting him. Father Arcand had to
hurry up the stairs of Mr. Guevara's house and was
able to leave only when a sergeant and a policeman
arrived and accompanied him to the convent
(testimony of Father Arcand, page 110; testimony of
policeman Salamanca, pages 97, 98). On said
occasion, Antonio Nosce and Aniceto Enriquez were
seen by the accused standing at the door of the post
office which was in f ront of the house of Mr.
Guevara (testimony of U. Arcand, page 109).
During those days, Antonio Nosce and Aniceto
Enriquez, armed with canes, were frequently seen
together near the convent (testimony of U. Arcand,
page 109).
"6. The proceeding against Antonio Nosce for the
maltreatment inflicted upon Father Arcand was
still pending when said Antonio Nosce, with the
evident intention of spreading terror in the entire
community, with a big cane attacked from behind
the attorney who represented Father Arcand as
private prosecutor in said case, while said at

607

VOL. 68, SEPTEMBER 29, 1939 607

Reverend Ulric Arcand vs. People

torney came from mass, causing a wound on his

head and felling him unconscious to the ground.
This took place on January 28, 1934 (see criminal
case No. 5905). Nosce was charged with frustrated
homicide and convicted of serious physical injuries.
"7. On October 18, 1934, a group of individuals hostile
to Father Arcand, who were organized into a
 'parade', passed in front of the convent shouting:
'Out, Father Arcand; out, Father Arcand', while the
latter looked out of the window of the convent.
Among those individuals was the herein
complainant Aniceto Enriquez, who, upon seeing
the accused Arcand. stretched his hand out to the
latter, gesticulating later with the same hand to
convey him the idea that he would cut his neck
(testimony of Maria Cabañero, page 74; testimony
of H. Manalo, pages 77, 78).
"8. In the night of November 21, 1934, stones were
thrown at the convent, breaking the windowpanes.
The accused Father Arcand and Father Rafiñan
went down. They found Ceto Enriquez himself in
the vicinity of the convent. Father Arcand
requested a policeman to arrest said Enriquez.
Undoubtedly, it was Father Arcand's right to
request it. Upon hearing it, however, Aniceto
Enriquez became furious and, with the cane carried
by him, wanted to strike Father Arcand. The
policeman intervened and warded off the blow.
(Testimony of Father Arcand, pages 59, 60.)
"9. Even in the very church, while Father Arcand
performed the duties of his ministry, Aniceto
Enriquez used to insult him. According to the
testimony of Enriquez himself, he used to enter the
church (although he was not a catholic but an
aglipayan) and as soon as Father Arcand began to
preach, he left on the pretext that he did not
understand English (testimony of Aniceto Enriquez,
page 42).
"10. On November 25, 1934, the day of the incident in
question, while Father Arcand was on his way from
the convent to the church, he met the chief clerk of
the provincial treasury of Tayabas, Mr. Nicolas
Tolentino. This gentleman told the accused: 'My
wife told me not to go to

608

608 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reverend Ulric Arcand vs. People

church frequently because they say that they are

going to kill Father Arcand. I answered: why should
I not go to church if I want to comply with my
duties as a catholic?' (Testimony of Nicolas
 Tolentino, page 55; testimony of the accused, page
103.)
"11. On that day, the feast of the Miraculous Virgin was
being celebrated. Shortly afterwards, and while the
accused was preaching from the pulpit, a band
passed. 'I noticed in the congregation', says the
accused, 'a movement not only of surprise but also
of fear' (testimony of the accused, page 101). This
state of the mind was due to the series of
aggressions, vexations and insults of which Father
Arcand had been the object, and to rumors spread
that the latter would be killed, for which reason the
faithful would do well not go to church frequently.
It was due to a great extent to the presence of
Aniceto Enriquez at the churchyard, which
presence in itself constituted a provocation to panic
and disorder.
"12. It is not true that the complaint was filed by
Aniceto Enriquez, prompted by the offense caused
to him by the phrase uttered by the accused. The
incident occurred on November 25, 1934. In the
very churchyard, immediately after the mass, the
teacher Paterno Africa informed Aniceto Enriquez
of what Father Arcand had said of him (testimony
of Aniceto Enriquez, page 37). Aniceto Enriquez did
not file any complaint either on the same day, or on
the following day, or the following week, or the
following month. The complaint was filed by him, at
the instigation of others and purely for vengeance,
on January 3, 1935, one day after Father Arcand
had gone to the office of the provincial fiscal to
demand protection f rom the acts of violence that
Ceto himself had been committing (testimony of the
accused Arcand, page 114. See date of the
complaint, January 3, 1935)."

The Court of Appeals denied the motion. In his brief the

attorney for the accused asserts that the Court of Appeals
denied the motion without stating any ground therefor. We
do not have the order of denial before us for
609

VOL. 68, SEPTEMBER 29, 1939 609

Reverend Ulric Arcand vs. People

the reason that it has not been forwarded. It may be

presumed, however, that the Court of Appeals denied the
motion for being unfounded and because in its decision
there already appears a detailed statement of all the
material facts necessary to arrive at the conclusion
whether or not the accused is really guilty of the offense
imputed to him.
In the first assignment of error, the accused maintains
that the Court of Appeals violated the law in refusing to
make the aforesaid findings of fact. We are of the opinion
and so hold that such error does not exist. By reading the
appealed decision, it will be seen that it contains a
methodical and complete statement of all the essential
facts necessary to determine the degree of criminal liability
incurred by the accused. With the fullness and precision
demanded by. the case, the Court of Appeals stated the
material facts, including the greater part of the ones on
which specific findings were sought. A reproduction of all
the facts which the defense claims to have been proved
would not serve any practical purpose in view of the fact
that those not appearing in the appealed decision are
irrelevant and do not establish the innocence of the
accused.
The main and only defense invoked in favor of the
accused and which is the object of the second assignment of
error, is that the words, which have been considered
defamatory, constitute a privileged communication and
that he acted without malice and in good faith.
In the case of United States vs. Cañete (38 Phil., 253 et
seq.), we said that "A communication made bona fide upon
any subject matter in which the party communicating has
an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, is
privileged, if made to a person having a corresponding
interest or duty, although it contained criminatory matter
which without this privilege would be slanderous and
actionable (Harrison vs. Bush, 5 E. & B., 344; 1 Jur. [N. S.],
846; 25 L. J. Q. B., 25; 3 W. R., 474; 85 E. C. L., 344)." The
defense of privileged communication, to be good, must be
based on the good faith of the person violat-
610

610 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Erlanger & Galinger vs. Alagar

ing the law or invoking the privilege. Speaking of oral

defamation or slander, the facts or circumstances under
which the defamation or slander was committed must show
that the offender acted without malice or in good faith. In
the case under consideration, the accused is not found in
 this situation and cannot successfully plead that he acted
in good faith and without malice. Accepting all the f acts
invoked in justification of his attitude, it appears clear that
he was not justified in defaming and discrediting from the
pulpit the good name and reputation of the' offended party.
The light felony committed by the accused is that
defined in the last part of article 358 of the Revised Penal
Code and the penalty 13 in accordance with law, for which
reason the appealed judgment is affirmed, with the costs of
this instance to the accused-petitioner. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Diaz, Laurel, and Moran,

JJ., concur.

CONCEPCION, J.:

I concur with the majority in the dispositive part of the

foregoing decision.
Judgment affirmed.

_____________

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.