ESTEFANIA DE GUZMAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

Review of the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on August 21, 1961 affirming the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of Manila finding petitioner guilty of slander
under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing her to pay a fine of
P100.00 and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P1,000.00.

The facts found by the Court of Appeals are as follows:

“ … it appears that at about 10:00 a.m. of October 31, 1958, the
complainant, Lourdes A. Tagle, a job analyst of the
Philippine National Bank, Manila, received a phone call from Estefania de Guzman, defendant-appellant, section chief of
the auditing department of the same bank, asking the former to repair to the
office of the latter at the fourth floor of the said building, Escolta, Manila. The offended party immediately went to the
office of the accused and there she was asked by the latter to pay the
indebtedness which she owed her. They later agreed that the complainant would
deliver to the accused certain pieces of jewelries as security for the payment
of said loan, after which Mrs. Tagle returned to her
office at the third floor of said building. At this precise moment, the accused
noticed that her cash money in the amount of P90.00 was missing from her table
and suspected that Mrs. Tagle was the one who has
taken the same as she was the only one who approached her at her table. She
requested Conrado Austria another employee of the same
office to call again Mrs. Tagle, which was done. Mrs.
Tagle again went to the office of the accused and upon
inquiry what she wanted, the latter told her that she lost her money in the
amount of P90.00. Mrs. Tagle told the accused to look
and search for it in her drawers to which the latter replied that she did it
already. At this juncture, Mrs. Tagle asked the
accused if she was suspecting her of getting the money, and the accused replied
that she was the only one who approached her table, to which Mrs. Tagle remarked that she did not get the money, to which
appellant said “who knows”. The accused continuing said that if the offended
party did not take the money why was it that when the first came to see her she
was bringing along her wallet, while at the second time she was no longer with
the wallet, and then asked Mrs. Tagle to allow herself
to be searched to which Mrs. Tagle agreed and started
crying. However the search was not made, and Mrs. Tagle sent Conrado Austria to get
her wallet and when it was shown to the accused, Marina Reyes arrived and heard
the argument between the complainant and the accused. The wallet was opened in
the presence of other persons who were attracted by the commotion, but the money
was not found in the wallet.”

Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in holding that her
utterances were slanderous; (2) in holding that malice in law and/or in fact
existed; and (3) in sentencing petitioner to a fine of P100.00 and damages in
the amount of P1,000.00.

In denying the defamatory character of the utterances petitioner maintains
that she was acting within her rights in confronting the complainant with the
loss of her money, and that it was a natural impulse for anybody to do what she
did under the circumstances. Petitioner also points out that she did not call
the offended party a thief, nor did she directly accuse her of having stolen her
money.

The contention is without merit. While it is true that the accused did not
directly call the offended party a thief, yet the implication of her acts and
statements was clearly to that effect. When she confronted the complainant
regarding the loss of the money she said that the latter was the only one who
had approached her table and that as soon as the complainant left the money had
disappeared. When the complainant denied having taken the money, petitioner
replied, “who knows?”, and then asked why the complainant had her wallet the
first time she came but was not carrying it anymore on her return. Finally,
petitioner suggested to the complainant that she should allow herself to be
searched. All these statements were made in a loud voice in the presence of many
persons. To be sure, petitioner had the right to make inquiries, but she went
beyond that and practically accused the offended party of the theft, subjecting
her to embarrassment and ridicule before other bank employees.

Petitioner also claims that there was no malice in law and/or in fact in the
utterances in question which would give rise to the crime of slander. It was her
well-grounded belief, she says, that the offended party was the one who took her
money and her motive in confronting her with the loss was merely to locate it, a
motive that was obviously justified.

The circumstances surrounding the case should be taken into consideration to
determine whether or not malice was present in petitioner’s utterances. It is an
undisputed fact that she was irked when the offended party failed to comply with
her promises regarding the payment of her indebtedness. Petitioner was insisting
on such payment, although after realizing that the offended party had no money
to pay, she agreed to accept the security of the latter’s jewelry in the meantime. It was then that
petitioner discovered that her money in the amount of P90.00 was missing, and
forthwith sent for the complainant to ask her about the loss. The ensuing
remarks of petitioner, particularly the suggestion that the complainant submit
to a search of her person, show the existence of malice in fact. Otherwise the
inquiry should have been done discreetly and not in the form of imputations
within the hearing of other employees.

We are convinced that neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals
committed the errors assigned in petitioner’s brief. We believe, however, that
the amount of indemnity adjudged in favor of the complainant should be reduced
to P500.00. With this sole modification the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J. B. L.,  Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez
and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.