ALICIA VDA. DE ABAPO, PETITIONER, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Alicia Vda. de Abapo versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Alicia Vda. de Abapo versus the People of the Philippines. A private complainant, Praxidio Trangia, Sr., charged Alicia with the crime of grave oral defamation for insults uttered on two occasions. Alicia's lone defense was procedural: she claimed that the barangay certification to file action was falsified, and that the criminal proceedings should therefore be voided. The case matters because the Supreme Court clarifies that for grave oral defamation, a barangay certification to file action is not even required, since the offense carries an imprisonment exceeding one year and thus falls outside the authority of the lupon. It also gives a clean lesson on the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Procedural History

The complaint for grave oral defamation was filed with the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Daanbantayan-Medellin. That court convicted Alicia and sentenced her to imprisonment of four months and one day of arresto mayor in its maximum period to two years and four months of prision correccional in its minimum period, and awarded ten thousand pesos in moral damages. Alicia appealed to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety. Alicia then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, raising only the alleged falsification of the barangay certification.

Facts

On the morning of 4 February 2002, Praxidio Trangia, Sr. and his companions found Alicia and several persons destroying the wall of his shop in Barangay Agujo, Daanbantayan, Cebu. He told her to stop, but she got angry. He sought the help of the barangay captain, who escorted him to the police station, and the police later arrived and restrained Alicia from further destruction.

The next day, 5 February 2002, Trangia returned to check his shop and again found Alicia destroying it. When he confronted her, she pointed her finger at him and uttered: "Buang! Ignorante! Ayaw pagbuot! Kiha bisan asa! Kaliwat ka'g buang!" — meaning, Insane! Ignorant! Don't interfere! File your complaint anywhere! You come from a family of insane persons! Four companions and several other persons heard the remarks.

On 22 February 2002, the parties met at the Office of the Barangay Captain for a conciliation meeting. There, Alicia repeatedly shouted the same defamatory words in the presence of several people. No settlement was reached, and Trangia filed the criminal complaint.

Issues

• Whether or not the criminal proceedings against Alicia should be voided because the barangay certification to file action was allegedly falsified.
• Whether or not a barangay certification to file action is a precondition to the prosecution of grave oral defamation.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the lower courts conformed to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 408 of Republic Act Number 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, provides:

Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. – The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city of municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except: x x x x x x x x x (c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00); x x x

This exception removes grave oral defamation from the lupon's authority, so no prior barangay conciliation is needed.

Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

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; xxx

Because this penalty exceeds one year of imprisonment, the offense falls squarely within the exception in Section 408.

Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three periods. – In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions the time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three portions.

This rule governs how the maximum term is fixed when the prescribed penalty has only two periods.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is without merit. Alicia presented no evidence that the barangay certification was falsified. Barangay Chairman Gerry Agang-ang never testified in court, and no affidavit from him was offered. Her bare allegation cannot overcome the presumption that a public document was regularly issued in the performance of official duty. Mere suspicion will not stand against that presumption absent evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant.

On the second issue, the Court held that the certification was unnecessary in the first place. Grave oral defamation is punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year, which activates the exception in Section 408 of the Local Government Code. Following the Garcia versus De la Peña ruling, a certification to file action is not required in a prosecution for grave oral defamation, as it is beyond the ambit of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.

On the third issue, the Court found the penalty erroneous for not conforming to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The minimum is taken one degree lower, from arresto mayor maximum to arresto mayor medium. For the maximum, since the prescribed penalty has only two periods, Article 65 requires dividing it into three equal portions. With neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the maximum falls in the medium period, from one year and one day to one year and eight months. The Court thus imposed three months of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and eight months of prision correccional as maximum.

Doctrine

• A barangay certification to file action is not a precondition to the prosecution of grave oral defamation, because the offense is punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year and therefore falls under the exception in Section 408 of the Local Government Code.
• A barangay certification is a public document, and it enjoys the presumption of regularity in its issuance; mere suspicion cannot overcome it absent clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence.
• Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, when the prescribed penalty is composed of only two periods, Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code requires dividing the entire time into three equal portions to fix the maximum term.

Disposition

The petition was denied. The decisions of the trial court and the Regional Trial Court were affirmed, with the modification that Alicia is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of three months of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and eight months of prision correccional as maximum.

Remember This

Memorize this line: grave oral defamation is beyond the ambit of the Katarungang Pambarangay, so no certification to file action is required. Examiners use this case to test the Section 408 exception and the Article 65 rule on penalties not composed of three periods.