EMMA CIMANES, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Cimanes versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Cimanes versus People of the Philippines, a criminal case for oral defamation, or slander, decided by the Supreme Court. Emma Cimanes, the petitioner, was the accused below; the People of the Philippines, the respondent, prosecuted the offense on complaint of Kennedy Corcino, her neighbor. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes the elements of slander, especially the element of publication, and shows how the courts distinguish serious from slight oral defamation. Second, and more practically for the bar, it corrects an impossible penalty: a straight two months of imprisonment that fits neither the serious nor the slight grade of the offense. It is, in short, a lesson in both the substantive crime and the arithmetic of penalties.

Procedural History

The complaint began in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque City, after barangay conciliation failed because the petitioner did not appear and a certification to file action was issued. An Information for Slander was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 77, Parañaque City. On May 24, 2011, that court rendered judgment finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing her to a straight penalty of two months of imprisonment, plus the costs of suit.

Aggrieved, the petitioner elevated the case to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 195, Parañaque City, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. On December 29, 2011, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision in its entirety. Her motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated October 2, 2012.

The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, seeking reversal. The Court considered the case submitted for decision and resolved it, partly granting the petition.

Facts

Kennedy Corcino and Emma Cimanes were neighbors at Saint Michael Street, San Agustin Village, Parañaque City. On August 27, 2004, at seven o'clock in the morning, Kennedy was walking along Saint Michael Street with his daughter Candy. As they passed the petitioner's house, the petitioner uttered, in a voice loud enough to be heard by her nearby neighbor Adelaida Dionisio, the words: "Ikaw pala ang witness ni Carding Reyes e drug pusher ka naman." Adelaida was cleaning her yard, about two meters away, and Candy also heard the remark.

Later that same day, at one o'clock in the afternoon, while at a nearby store, the petitioner told the store owner, Josie, in a loud voice: "Kung may camera lang ako nakunan ko ng litrato si Kennedy na may inaabutan ng shabu." Adelaida again heard the statement.

The matter was referred to barangay conciliation, but the petitioner failed to appear, so a certification to file action was issued. Kennedy then filed his complaint with the City Prosecutor's Office, and the Information for Slander followed. At trial, the petitioner raised denial and alibi, claiming she was in Pasay City that morning. The courts below rejected the defense, giving weight to the categorical and consistent positive identification by Adelaida and Kennedy, and noting that the distance between Pasay City and Parañaque City made it entirely possible for her to be at the scene.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved all the elements of the crime of slander, particularly the element of publication.
• Whether or not the dismissal of the accused's defense of denial and alibi was correct.
• Whether or not the penalty meted out, assuming the conviction stands, is excessive.

Applicable Provisions

Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code defines oral defamation and draws the line between its serious and slight forms. It provides:

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.

This is the provision the Court construes, both to grade the offense and to test the legality of the penalty imposed below.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of slander were established, including publication. Publication exists when the defamatory material is communicated to a third person, meaning a person other than the one to whom the statement refers. Here, Adelaida Dionisio stood only about two meters away and heard the remarks, and Kennedy's daughter Candy heard them as well. The intention of the petitioner that the remarks be heard by another person was therefore clear.

On the second issue, the Court held that the dismissal of the defense of denial and alibi was correct. Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses, prevails over denial and alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must show that it was physically impossible for her to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and the distance between Pasay City and Parañaque City did not establish that impossibility.

On the third issue, the Court held that the penalty was indeed excessive. The Metropolitan Trial Court imposed a straight penalty of two months, which is not within the range of arresto mayor in its medium period, and which also exceeds the limit of arresto menor. Grading the offense, the Court found the remarks were not serious or insulting in nature. The petitioner and Kennedy had no prior misunderstanding, and the remarks were meant to express displeasure, if not anger, over the related cases involving Carding Reyes, not to insult Kennedy. The offense was therefore only slight oral defamation, punishable by arresto menor, or from one to thirty days, or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. The Court also clarified that Administrative Circular Number 08-2008, which prefers a fine in libel cases, speaks of libel under Article 355 and does not govern this case under Article 358. Since the trial court chose imprisonment and no grave abuse of discretion was shown, the Court upheld imprisonment but lowered it to thirty days.

Doctrine

Oral defamation, or slander, is the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business, or means of livelihood. Publication is an essential element, and it is satisfied when the defamatory statement is communicated to a third person, that is, anyone other than the person to whom it refers.

Whether oral defamation is serious or slight depends not only on the sense, grammatical significance, and ordinary meaning of the words, but also on the special circumstances of the case, the antecedents, and the relationship between the offender and the offended party, which tend to show the intention of the offender at the time. Words merely insulting, or mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, do not by themselves constitute defamation.

Denial and alibi are negative, self-serving defenses that cannot prevail over categorical and consistent positive identification absent proof of ill motive. Alibi requires proof of physical impossibility, measured by the distance between the two places and the facility of access between them.

Finally, the penalty must conform to Article 358: serious oral defamation carries arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, while slight oral defamation carries arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. Administrative Circular Number 08-2008 applies to libel under Article 355, not to oral defamation under Article 358.

Disposition

The petition was partly granted. The conviction was affirmed, but the penalty was modified, and Emma Cimanes was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for thirty days.

Remember This

Memorize this line: publication in slander means the defamatory words were heard by a third person, and the grade of the offense turns on the words plus the circumstances and relationship of the parties. Examiners use this case to test the serious and slight distinction under Article 358 and to catch candidates who forget that the penalty must fall within the range the law prescribes.