JULIA D. CARIAGA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE MARIA JUSTO GUERRERO AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Petition to prohibit the respondent municipal judge of Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte from
hearing its Criminal Case No. 600, for grave slander, filed by some thirty
teachers of the Pasuquin National Agricultural School
against the herein petitioner, Julia D. Cariaga.

The petition alleges, inter alia,
that on 27 April 1964, the
aforesaid numerous teachers filed a criminal complaint in the municipal court
of Pasuquin, Ilocos
Norte.  The complaint reads as follows:

(Caption omitted)

“COMPLAINT”

“The undersigned teachers of the Pasuquin
National Agricultural School, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte, under oath, accused JULIA DAGUIO CARIAGA, of
the crime of GRAVE SLANDER committed as follows:

“That on or about 4:00 P.M. of April 8, 1964, in the Audio
Visual Room of the Pasuquin National Agricultural
School, Pasuquin, Ilocos
Norte, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
JULIA DAGUIO CARIAGA, being then present in a meeting of the graduating
students of the Pasuquin National Agricultural, their
parents and teachers and employees of the said Pasuquin
National Agricul­tural School, voluntarily, criminally and with the intention
of attacking the honesty, integ­rity, virtue and reputation of the teachers and
employees of the Pasuquin National Agricultural School,
Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte, and
for the purpose of exposing these teachers and em­ployees of the said Pasuquin National Agricul­tural School to the public
hatred, contempt and ridicule spoke injurious and defamatory remarks relative
to and concerning the integ­rity sand capabilities of the teachers and em­ployees
of the Pasuquin National Agricultural School, the
words as follows:

‘WHAT KIND OF STANDARD DO YOU HAVE HERE MR.
GUIANG?”  IS THIS THE KIND OF CHARACTER
TRAINING THE TEACHERS AND EMPLOYES OF THIS SCHOOL ARE GIVING THE STUDENTS?

‘BULLSIET’, ‘SIET I BETTER WALK OUT.’  OKININAYO AMIN NGA
MAMAESTRA CASLA CAYLA CASIGURIAN’.

in a loud and
angry voice which the Ilocano portions of the
above-quoted defamatory statements if translated into English would mean:

‘VULVA OF YOUR MOTHER ALL OF YOU TEACHERS AS IF YOU ARE ALWAYS IN
THE RIGHT TRACK.’

“That the remarks in question, particular­ly the words or
utterances such as ‘Bullsiet, siet
and okininayo amin nga mamaestra casla
cayla casiruan‘ had for its
object to insinuate and made by the accused and was in effect under­stood and
interpreted by the teachers of Pasuquin National
Agricultural School to have place them into discredit, disrepute and redicule in front of the public.

“That the accused committed the offense in her capacity as a
member of the Bureau of Public School which is in gross violation of ethical
principles prescribed by the Department of Edu­cation.

“CONTRARY TO
LAW.

“Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte, April
27, 1964.

t/MR. BERNARDO ROMERO                                                                                        (SGD)
MRS. NORMA G. REGIDO

President                                                                                                                            Vice-President

Faculty Club                                                                                                                       Faculty
Club

FNAS                                                                                                                                  FNAS

(SGD) MR. APOLINAR
VISCO                                                                                        t/MISS
SATURNINA AGUDA

Secretary                                                                                                                              Treasurer

(SGD) MRS. FILOMENA
RIVERA                                                                                   (SGD)
MR. WILSON ALEJANDRO

P. R. O.                                                                                                                                   Sgt.
at Arms

t/Mr.
JUAN ACOB

Sgt. at Arms

M E M
B E R S                                                  
&                                                    W
I T N E S S
E S

(SGD)
MRS. ANICIA AGUDA                                                                                               (SGD)
MISS EUGEVA AGUA

(SGD) MRS. FILOMENA
ALCON                                                                                         (SGD)
MRS. ROSARIO APANAY

(SGD) MR. FRANCISCO BATACAN                                                                                   (SGD)
MRS. ROSALIA BATACAN

(SGD) MR. EUGENIO
CALIVA                                                                                             T/MR.
ALBERTO CALPO

(SGD) MISS SALOME CALUPIG                                                                                         (SGD)
MISS DOLORES DAQUIOAG

(SGD) MR. SEVERO
DOMINGO                                                                                         (SGD)
MISS EFIGENIA FRANCO

(SGD) MR. SIXTO I.
GUERRERO                                                                                       (SGD)
MONICO JACINTO

(SGD) MR. ALFREDO
PARAISO                                                                                        T/MISS
EUGENIA PUYAON

(SOD) FELIPE REPUTOLA                                                                                                 T/MR.
BENJAMIN SAGISI

(SGD) MISS CLEOFE SALUD                                                                                             (SGD)
MR. LIBORIO UDASCO

(SGD) MRS. ILUMINADA
VALLEJOS                                                                                  (SGD)
MRS. ZOROHAYDA J. VISCO

(SGD) MR. JACINTO
LLAPITAN                                                                                          T/MR.
RIZAL LACISTE

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me on this 27th day of April, 1964, at Pasuquin,
Ilocos Norte.

(SGD) MARIA JUSTO-GUERRERO
  

Municipal Judge

  Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte”

On arraignment on 13 May
1964, the accused Julia D. Cariaga, entered a plea of not guilty.  After that, it was discovered that, tucked in
the records of Criminal Case No. 600 was an “Information”, charging
the same accused for the same crime and subscribed and sworn to by the same
accusers on 15 April 1964.  In this
“Information”, however, the allegedly offensive utterances were as
follows:

“WHAT KIND OF STANDARD DO YOU HAVE HERE MR. GUIANG?”
“IS THIS THE KIND OF CHARACTER TRAINING THE TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THIS
SCHOOL ARE GIVING THE STUDENTS?”

Outside of this difference, and aside
from other inconsequential matters, the “Information” and the
“Complaint” were in form and substance, almost the same.

On 14 December 1964, petitioner Cariaga,
claiming that she did not know on which charge she would undergo trial, the
“Complaint” or the “Information”, moved to quash on the
ground that she would be put twice in jeo­pardy for the same offense; that
neither pleading states facts constitutive of a criminal offense; and that the
court has no jurisdiction.

The respondent court denied the motion to quash and set the case
for trial.  On the date set for trial,
which was on 30 April 1965,
the petitioner filed the present petition for prohibition, with preliminary
injunction.

On 28 June 1965,
this Court denied the motion for the issuance of preliminary injunction.

According to the respondent judge, the offended parties had
appeared before her on 14 April 1964,
complaining verb­ally against the petitioner. 
On the same day, petitioner Cariaga also
approached the judge and requested her inter­vention in settling the case.  On 15
April 1964, the complainants subscribed and swore to the truth of
the “Inform­ation” and gave the same to the judge, who received
it.  (Answer, p. 2,
par. 2).  The judge then gave a
copy to the husband of Cariaga to serve as their
guide in settling the case before the municipal mayor.  But the complaining teachers returned to the
judge and took back all the original and copies of the
“Information”.  Then,
(according to the respondent judge) on 27 April 1964 “perhaps because the
case could not be settled” the complainants filed the “Complaint”,
attaching thereto as a supporting paper, the “Information”.

The action of respondent Judge in informally receiving the
“Information”, and just as informally having allowed its withdrawal,
without any notice to the accused, apparently generated suspicion of bias in
the mine of the accused, which could have been avoided had the actions of the
Judge been more formal and discreet; still there is only one case for grave
slander filed against the petitioner. 
This is the “Complaint”, as is evident by the fact that it
alone has a docket number.  The
“Information” was not docketed as a separate and independent case but
merely attached to the “Complaint” as a supporting paper.

Since there is only one case against the accused, no double
jeopardy could possibly attach.

The crime of grave slander (Penal Code, Art. 358) is punishable
by arresto mayor maximum (4 months and
1 day to 6 months) to prision correccional minimum (6 months and 1 day to 2 years
and 4 months.) Republic Act No. 3828 (that took effect upon its approval on 22
June 1963, and which was in force when Criminal Case No. 600 of the respondent
court was filed) had increased the original jurisdiction of muni­cipal courts
in criminal cases from that provided for in the former legislation to —

“(c)  Except violations of election laws, all
other offense in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for not
more than three years, x x  x.”
(Emphasis supplied)

Hence, the respondent municipal court has jurisdiction over the
crime of grave slander of which petitioner stands accused.

The case below was commenced and prosecuted without the
intervention, mediation or participation of the fiscal or any of his
deputies.  This, notwithstanding, the
juris­diction of the court was not affected (Valdez
vs. Director of Prisons, 38 Phil. 596) but the court should have cited the
public prosecutor to intervene.  (Trinidad
vs. Jarabe, 3 Phil. 518)

For the foregoing reasons, the writ of prohibition is
hereby denied and the petition dismissed. 
The respond­ent court is, however, directed to continue wit its Crim­inal
Case No. 600, upon notice to the fiscal. 
No costs.

Concepcion C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.