NARCISA TUL-ID, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

The Court acting upon respondent People’s recommendation modifies
the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals on petitioner-accused for the crime
of slight oral defamation by removing the 11-day prison term and in lieu
thereof imposing a P200. – fine.

The Court of Appeals in its judgment under review found petitioner-accused
guilty of the crime of slight oral defamation, she having uttered insulting
words against complainant Atty. Pedro T. Garcia in his office “in the heat
of anger with some provocation on the
part of the offended party”^[1]
and reduced the penalty imposed by the trial court for grave oral defamation
(one month and one day of arresto mayor
as minimum to four months and one day of arresto
mayor as maximum with P1,500.00 as moral and/or consequential damages
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency) to arresto
menor in its medium period or eleven (11) days of imprisonment with P500.00 as damages
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency on the basis of its
findings, as follows:

“x x x The
admitted antecedents of the incident in question and the subjective considerations
involved all tend credence to the truth of the charge.  Atty. Garcia was then in his law office
preparing for the trial of a case.  The
appellant, accompanied by her daughter, arrived in said office to demand that
Atty. Garcia give to her the sum of P150.00 which Atty. Garcia received from Araceli Escudero.  The appellant was then in desperate need of
money.  She could not possibly understand
why, although she was the agent who negotiated the sale of the properties of
the Ando family to Virgilia Gamboa
from which she expected a commission of P1,500.00,
Atty. Garcia would be paid ahead, even partially.  The appellant had not yet received a centavo
of her expected commission, and she
suspected that Atty. Garcia advised Araceli Escudero not to pay the appellant her commission until the
transaction shall have been finally consummated.  Claiming that the said sum was paid to him by
way of attorney’s fees, Atty. Garcia naturally denied the demand of the
appellant for the delivery to her of the sum of P150.00.  It is not denied that appellant’s temper is
easily aroused.  It was aggravated by the
admitted remark of Atty. Garcia, which he claimed to have been jokingly made
but was evidently taken in a different light by the appellant, that the latter
was evading the payment of the proper taxes due from her as a real estate
broker.  Under these circumstances,
although the words shown to have been uttered by the appellant are indeed
insulting in nature, the crime committed by the appellant is only that of
slight oral defamation, they having been uttered in the heat of anger with some
provocation on the part of the offended party (People vs. Doronila,
[C. A.] 40 O.G. Suppl. 1, p. 231; People vs.
Dominguez, [C.A.] 51 O.G. 2983).  We
agree with the Solicitor General that no mitigating circumstance attended the
commission of the crime.  The proper
penalty should accordingly be in the me­dium period of arresto
menor or eleven (11) days of imprisonment.  We also reduce the indemnity to P500.00.”^[2]

The factual findings of the appellate court as supported by the
evidence of record are beyond review by this Court, but the Court issued its
Resolution of June 6, 1977 requiring the Solicitor General on behalf of
respondent People “to comment as to the proper penalty (fine instead of
imprisonment) imposable on petitioner after considering all the circumstances
and antecedents of the case as stated in the Court of Appeals’ decision x x x.” In compliance
therewith, respondent thru Acting Solicitor General Vicente V. Mendoza filed
the comment of June 29, 1977, wherein it is manifested that while the penalty
imposed was “legally correct” and within the range of the penalty
provided by law^[3],
“Petitioner’s Age, Sex and Status Pre-dispose Towards Leniency –
The petitioner is a woman who, in 1969 or thereabouts, appeared to have been 58
years old and a widow.  Today, 8 years
later, petitioner must be above 65 years of age.  Although the respondent Court of Appeals legally
imposed imprisonment of 11 days upon the petitioner, it could have legally
imposed a fine not exceeding P200.00, instead of imprisonment.  Considering the age, sex and status of the
petitioner as a widow, and considering as well, the other circumstances recited
in the above-quoted decision of the respondent Court, the undersigned counsel
would have no objection to the imposition upon the petitioner of a fine not
exceeding P200.00 instead of 11 days of imprisonment.  This imposition of a fine would serve the
ends of justice as well as the imposition of imprisonment in the instant
case.” Respondent People therefore submitted “that a fine not
exceeding P200.00 may be legally imposed upon the petitioner instead of the 11
days imprisonment meted out on her by the respondent Court of Appeals.”

The Court accepts the Solicitor General’s recommendation of
leniency and will eliminate the prison term and instead impose the lesser
penalty of a P200. – fine within the range of the
penalty provided by law, with the P500. – damages
awarded by the appellate court.  The
Court further expresses the hope that petitioner may have mellowed with the
passing of the years and learned better to hold her temper in check and stay
out of trouble.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court modifies the penalty imposed in the
judgment under review and sentences petitioner-accused to pay a fine of Two
hundred pesos (P200.00), to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P500.00
as damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay
the costs.  SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Muñoz
Palma, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Court of Appeals’ decision, p. 9; Rollo,
p. 19.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 18-19.

^[3]
“ART. 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”.