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

Estefania de Guzman versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a criminal case for slander, brought by the People of the Philippines against Estefania de Guzman, a section chief in the auditing department of the Philippine National Bank in Manila. The offended party is Lourdes Tagle, a job analyst in the same bank. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between a lawful inquiry into a loss and a defamatory imputation of theft. De Guzman never used the word thief, yet the Supreme Court held that her words and conduct, taken together, plainly imputed the crime of theft. The decision is a standing lesson on how spoken words are construed in light of surrounding circumstances, and on how malice is proved in slander.

Procedural History

The trial court, the Court of First Instance of Manila, found Estefania de Guzman guilty of slander under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. It sentenced her to pay a fine of 100 pesos and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of 1,000 pesos. She appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court in a decision promulgated on August 21, 1961. She then brought the case to the Supreme Court on review, assigning three errors: that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that her utterances were slanderous, in holding that malice in law or in fact existed, and in sentencing her to a fine of 100 pesos and damages of 1,000 pesos.

Facts

At about ten o'clock in the morning of October 31, 1958, Lourdes Tagle, a job analyst of the Philippine National Bank, received a telephone call from Estefania de Guzman, a section chief of the auditing department of the same bank. De Guzman asked Tagle to come to her office on the fourth floor of the building on Escolta, Manila. Tagle went at once. There de Guzman asked her to pay the indebtedness she owed her. They agreed that Tagle would deliver certain pieces of jewelry as security for the payment of the loan, and Tagle returned to her office on the third floor.

At that precise moment, de Guzman noticed that her cash of 90 pesos was missing from her table. She suspected Tagle, who was the only one who had approached her table. Through another employee, Conrado Austria, she sent for Tagle again. When Tagle returned, de Guzman told her that she had lost 90 pesos. Tagle told her to search her drawers, and de Guzman replied that she had already done so. Tagle then asked whether she was being suspected of taking the money. De Guzman answered that Tagle was the only one who had approached her table. When Tagle said she did not get the money, de Guzman replied, "who knows." De Guzman went on to ask why Tagle had her wallet with her on the first visit but not on the second, and then asked Tagle to allow herself to be searched. Tagle agreed and began to cry. The search was not made. Tagle sent Conrado Austria to get her wallet, and when it was shown to de Guzman, Marina Reyes arrived and heard the argument. The wallet was opened in the presence of other persons drawn by the commotion, but the money was not found in it.

All these statements were made in a loud voice in the presence of many persons. It was also undisputed that de Guzman was irked when Tagle failed to comply with her promises to pay her indebtedness, and that she was insisting on payment until she agreed to accept the jewelry as security in the meantime.

Issues

• Whether or not the utterances of the petitioner were slanderous, although she did not directly call the offended party a thief.
• Whether or not malice in law or in fact attended the utterances of the petitioner.
• Whether or not the penalty of a fine of 100 pesos and indemnity of 1,000 pesos was proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the petitioner was charged and convicted, provides:

Libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

This is the provision the trial court and the Court of Appeals applied in finding the petitioner guilty of slander, and the Supreme Court reviewed the conviction against it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the contention is without merit. While it is true that the accused did not directly call the offended party a thief, the implication of her acts and statements was clearly to that effect. She told Tagle that the latter was the only one who had approached her table and that as soon as Tagle left the money had disappeared. When Tagle denied taking the money, the petitioner replied, "who knows," and then asked why Tagle had her wallet the first time she came but was not carrying it on her return. Finally, she suggested that Tagle allow herself to be searched. All these statements were made in a loud voice in the presence of many persons. The Court put the rule this way:

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.

On the second issue, the Court held that the circumstances surrounding the case must be taken into account to determine whether malice was present. The petitioner was irked when the offended party failed to comply with her promises to pay her indebtedness. She was insisting on payment, and it was then that she discovered her 90 pesos missing and forthwith sent for the complainant. The ensuing remarks, particularly the suggestion that the complainant submit to a search of her person, show the existence of malice in fact. The Court explained:

Otherwise the inquiry should have been done discreetly and not in the form of imputations within the hearing of other employees.

On the third issue, the Court was convinced that neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals committed the errors assigned. It believed, however, that the amount of indemnity adjudged in favor of the complainant should be reduced to 500 pesos.

Doctrine

First, a defamatory imputation need not be express. Where the acts and statements of the accused, taken together, clearly imply that the offended party committed theft, the imputation is slanderous even if the word thief is never used. Second, the right to make inquiries into a loss is not unlimited. The inquiry must be made discreetly; when it is carried out in a loud voice and in the form of imputations within the hearing of other employees, it goes beyond inquiry and becomes an accusation. Third, malice in fact may be established from the surrounding circumstances, including the accused's irked state of mind over an unpaid debt and the public manner in which the imputation was made. These rules are read together with Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes slander and fixes its penalties.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with the sole modification that the indemnity in favor of the complainant was reduced to 500 pesos, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that one may inquire, but one may not practically accuse: the implication of the acts and statements, not the literal words, makes the slander. Examiners use this case to test malice in fact and the construction of defamatory utterances in light of surrounding circumstances.