Memorandum of Appeal People Vs Directo

 

Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 161, Pasig City People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, - versus MARY ROSE AIMEE L. DIRECTO Accused.

Criminal Case No. M-PSG-1700541-CR For: Slight Oral Defamation

x -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

The private complainants this case, and through and the undersigned counsel, respectfullyin submit theirbymemorandum hereby allege as follows: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The accused was charged before the lower court with Slight Oral Defamation, as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code, as follows: “On  or about

March 7 7,, 2016, in Pasig C City ity and w within ithin the  jurisdiction of this th is Honorable Court, the a accused, ccused, with the malicious purpose of impeaching and besmirching the virtue, character and reputation of complainants Jay Michael V. Yason and Arlene C. Dela Paz-Yason, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously utter the following defamatory words and imputations against said complainants, to wit: “Alam  ko kaya ako nila tinanggal sa procurement ay para magawa nila lahat ng gusto nila at mabili nila ang gusto nila.”  “Katulad   na lang ng mga second hand office chair na binili

sa HMR gusto kasi nila kumita doon pati sa mga delivery charges.”  “At alam mo ba? Pinagkikitaan din nila ang pagbenta ng lote dito!” 

which utterances, made known to complainants only on October 12, 2016 impute a vice or defect, tending to cause dishonor,

 

Page 2 of 6 

discredit and contempt of complainants to their damage and prejudice. Contrary to law.” 

The accused was convicted of the said offense by the lower court in its Decision dated 6 April 2018 (promulgated last 13 April 2018) as follows: “WHEREFORE,  premises considered, accused MARY ROSE

DIRECTO is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slight oral defamation. Accordingly, the Court hereby imposes upon the penalty of FINE in the amount of two hundred pesos (Php200.00), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. SO ORDERED.” 

The lower court did not hold the accused liable civilly against the complainants, hence this appeal. ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED SHOULD ALSO BE HELD CIVILLY LIABLE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS DISCUSSION

Having been convicted by the lower court of the offense charged, the accused should also be held liable for the damage she caused the private complainants, as a result of her actions. pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code are clear on thisThe point: Chapter One PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES “

Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. - Every person

criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Article 104. What is included in civil liability. - The civil liability

established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes: 1. Restitution; 2. Reparation of the damage caused; 3. Indemnification for consequential damages.   “

 

Page 3 of 6 

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The New Civil Code is no less categorical: Article 2219.  Moral damages may be recovered in the following

“

and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. ”  (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The Supreme Court had also applied the same principles in numerous cases, most especially in one involving the same offense for which the accused herein was convicted of, slight oral defamation: “Underlying the legal principle that a person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable is the view that from f rom the standpoint of its

effects, a crime has dual character: (1) as an offense against the state because of the disturbance of the social order; and (2) as an offense against the private person injured by the crime  unless it involves the crime of treason, rebellion, espionage, contempt and others wherein no civil liability arises on the part of the offender either because there are no damages to be compensated or there is no private person injured by the crime. In the ultimate analysis, what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation of everyone to repair or to make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his act or omission, whether done intentional or negligently and whether or not punishable by law.

In the case at bar, private respondent was found guilty of slight oral defamation and sentenced to a fine of P50.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, but no civil liability arising from the felonious act of the accused was adjudged. This is erroneous. As a general rule, a person who is found to be criminally liable offends two (2) entities: the state or society in which he lives and the individual member of the society or private person who was injured or damaged by the punishable act or omission. The offense of which private respondent was found guilty is not one of those felonies where no civil liability results because either there is no offended party or no damage

 

Page 4 of 6 

was caused to a private person. There is here an offended party,

whose main contention precisely is that he suffered damages in view of the defamatory words and statements uttered by private respondent, in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as moral damages and the further sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) as exemplary damages.  Article 2219, par. (7) of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case of libel, slander or any other form of defamation

This provision of law establishes the right of an offended party in a case for oral defamation to recover from the guilty party damages for injury to his feelings and reputation. The offended party is likewise allowed to recover punitive or exemplary damages. It must be remembered that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention

and justifiable motive for making it is shown. And malice may be inferred from the style and tone of publication subject to certain exceptions which are not present in the case at bar. Calling petitioner who was a barangay captain an ignoramus, traitor, tyrant and Judas is clearly an imputation of defects in petitioner's character sufficient to cause him embarrassment and social humiliation. Petitioner testified to the feelings of shame and anguish he suffered as a result of the incident complained of.  It is patently error for the trial court tto o overlook this vital piece of

evidence and to conclude that the "facts and circumstances of the case as adduced by the evidence do not warrant the awarding of moral damages." Having misapprehended the facts, the trial court's findings with respect thereto is not conclusive upon us. 1”  (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, having been convicted by the lower court of the crime of slight oral defamation, the accused should have likewise been ordered pay damages the complainants effect of her herein, derogatory remarks on thetoreputations of the for private who are both doctors, professionals in their chosen fields of specialization.  As found by the lower court in its Decision convicting the accused of the offense charged: “It  is also worthy to note that the complainants spouses Yason,

aside from being both doctors by profession, were also incorporators, shareholders, and officers of the MDHMCI  –  1

No. 82146, January 22, 1990, EULOGIO OCCENA, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO M. ICAMINA, Presiding Judge, Branch X of the Regional Trial Court Sixth Judicial Region, San Jose, Antique; THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by

 G.R.

the Honorable Provincial Fiscal of Antique; and CRISTINA VEGAFRIA, respondents.

 

Page 5 of 6 

complainant Dr. Jay Michael V. Yason being the President and CEO and complainant Dr. Arlene C. Dela Paz-Yason being the Head of the the Construction Co Committee. mmittee. Needless to state, they both held a high-esteemed position in the MDHMCI, and respectable at that. Given their standing, ascribing to them anomalies and irregularities, such as the utterances made by accused Directo, definitely discredited or impeached their good names and reputation.” 2 (Emphasis supplied)

 As stated by private complainant Dr. Arlene Yason in her Judicial Affidavit submitted before the lower court, and for which she was cross examined by the counsel for the accused3: vy told yyou ou what the accused said, what happened? “20.  And after IIvy a. We were removed from the board of Marikina Doctors Hospital last November 21, 2016. Before we were removed as Board of Directors a meeting was called among the founders or investors of the hospital, they asked questions about the purchase on HMR office, lot where the hospital was built, equipment, etc from us in accusatory tones. and then the board decided to hold the stockholders’ meeting earlier,

that we should have the meeting later that month also, in November 2016. 21. Then what happened?

b. My husband was nominated to a seat in the board but he refused. I decided to run but was not elected. Then som some e of our incorporators-founders and investors who are board of directors of Marikina Doctors Hospital in other ongoing projects backed out, and some of our friends would no longer invite us to be part of similar projects, saying we already have a bad reputation in because of the rumors coming from Marikina Doctors Hospital. 22. Then what happened? a. Now we can no longer be prominently associated with any hospital project; we cannot be visible in such projects, we can only join in the the background, that we can provi provide de funding but it should not be emphasized before other investors, because of what they have heard happen in Marikina Doctors Hospital. 23. And then what happened? a. After Ivy told us, we discussed our options, consulted lawyers, and decided to file file this case. We have already spent at least Php100,000.00 on acceptance fees and we pay our lawyer Php4,000.00 per hearing as appearance fee. We paid twice

2 

Page 12, Decision Pages 4-5, Judicial Judicial Affidavit of Dr. Arlene Arlene C. dela Paz-Yason Paz-Yason

33 

 

Page 6 of 6 

for the acceptance fee one for you and one for the firm of Atty Mutia .” 

Clearly, the defamatory utterances of the accused had a negative effect on the private complainants, for which she should be held liable civilly. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Decision of the lower court dated 6 April 2018 be modified, in that the accused should also be held civilly liable to the private complainants herein for actual damages in the amount of at least Php100,000.00, as well as moral and exemplary damages. The private complainants likewise pray for such other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises. Parañaque City for Pasig City, 3 October 2018.

JOSEPH JOHN GERALD M. AGUAS Counsel for the Private Complainants 28 Gonzales St., Sinag Tala Subdivision, BF Homes, Paranaque City 1700 PTR No. 6367679 4 Jan 2018 Lucena Ci City ty IBP Lifetime No. 761/Roll No. 38313 MCLE Compliance VI #8203 until 14 April 2022 Tel No. 09178422668 Copy furnished:  MORALES JUSTINIANO PEÑA AND LUMAGUI Counsel for the Accused 7th Floor, RCI Building Rada Street, Legaspi Village Makati City LBC/RR # ______________________

EXPLANATION

Service of the foregoing pleading on the adverse parties to this case was done via private courier/registered mail, due to lack of personnel and time necessary to effect personal service thereof.