THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CARMEN SARIO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. DULCE SARIO, DEFEND…

In the Court of First
distance of Quezon (Guniaca branch) six Informations charging the crime
of oral defamation n filed against Carmen Sarto (Criminal Cases Nos.
758 and 764, now G. R. Nos. L-20754 and 20759); Dulce Sario (Criminal
Cases No. 759 and 763, now G. R. Nos. 20755 and 20758); Asuncion
Requiron (Criminal Case No. 761, now G. R. No. L-10756); and Francisco
Sario (criminal Case No. 762, now G. R. No. L-20757) for allegedly
having called complainant Ester Peña a “mangkukulam.”

Before
arraignment the four accused filed a joint motion to quash on the
ground that the facts alleged in the informations do not constitute an
offense punishable by law. The court granted the motion, so the
prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeals (which thereafter
certified the cases to us), and now raises the sole question of whether
each of the six informations quoted hereunder alleges facts that
constitute a punishable offense:

“The
undersigned provincial Fiscal accuses CARMEN SARIO of the crime of
Grave Oral Defamation, defined and punished under Article 358 of the
Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

“That on or about
the 6th day of October 1958, in the municipality of Calauag, Province
of Quezon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
court, the abovenamed accused, with intent to dishonor, discredit and
place in public contempt and ridicule one ESTER PEÑA, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously utter the following
defamatory words and expressions in the presence of and within the
hearing of many people, directed to the said Ester Pefia, to wit:

“AKALAIN
M0NG MANGKDKULAM PAIA SI ESTER PEÑA. NATIYAK NG HERBOIARYO NA SI ESTER
ANG KUMULAM KAY LITA. BOSES NI ESTER ANG NADINIG NA KANYANG 1NAAMING
SIYA NGA ANG KUMULAM KAY LITA. NANGAKONG PUPUNTA DITO SA AMTN UPANG
HUMINGI NG TAWAD.”

“IKAW ANG BAHALA KUNG AYAW M0NG
MANIWALA. NOONG UNA AY AYAW DIN NAMING MANIWALA SUBALIT NGAYON AY
NANINTMALA KAMING TALAGANG TOTOO NA SI ESTER ANG KUMULAM KAY LITA.”

“ALAM M0 BANG TATLONG TAO NA ANG KINULAM NI ESTER? NA PAWANG NAMATAY?
UNA, AY SI SALVADOR LIM, IKALAWA, SI MRS. ARGENTE AT IKATLO, SI PAULO
LABACO. SA PAGTATANONG NOONG HERBOLARYO KAY LITA, BOSES NI ESTER ANG
NAGSASALITA AT NANG IANUNGIN KUNG BAKIT PINATAY SI OYANG ANG SAGOT AY
NAGSESELOS SIYA SAPAGKA’T ANG GUSTO NI ALING CONSI NA NAPANGASAWA NI
MARCIANO AY SI OYANG.” ( G. R. No. L-20754).”

“The
undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses DULCE SARIO of the crime of Oral
Defamation, defined and punished under Article 358 of the Revised Penal
Code, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 6th day
of October 1958, In the Municipality of Calauag, Province of Quezon,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said Accused, with intent to dishonor, discredit and place in public
contempt and ridicule one ESTER PEÑA, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously utter in a loud voice the following
insulting defamatory words in the presence of and within the hearing of
several persons directed to the said Ester Peña:

“MINANA
NI ESTER ANG PANGKUKULAM SA KANYANG AMA AT MARAHIL AY INILIPAT NA NIYA
SA KANYANG ANAK KAYA NAMAN ANG BATA AY NAMAMAYAT NA NGAYON.” (G. R. No.
L-20755).”

“The undersigned Provincial Fiscal
accuses ASUNCION REQUIRON of the crime of Oral Defamation, defined and
punished under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as
follows:

“That on or about the 2nd or 3rd day of October
1958, in the municipality of Calauag, Province of Quezon, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said Accused, with intent
to dishonor, discredit and place in public contempt and ridicule one
ESTER PEÑA, did then and there willfully, and unlawfully, and
feloniously utter the following insulting defamatory words in the
presence of and within the hearing of other persons, directed to the
said Ester Pefia:

“ANG KUMULAM KAY LIIA AY
WALANG IBA KUNGDI SI ESTER PEÑA, NATITIYAK NG HERBOIARYO NA SI ESTER
NGA ANG KUMULAM KAY LITA. SAYANG AT AAYAW NI LITA NA PAHMA SA MUKHA
SAPAGKA’T ANG MAGKAKAROON NG SUGAT AY HINDI SI LITA KUNDI SI ESTER.”
(G. R. No. L-2056).”

“The undersigned Provincial
Fiscal accuses FRANCISCO SARIO of the crime of Oral Defamation, defined
and punished under Article 358 of the Revised penal Code, committed as
follows:

“That on or about the 8th or 9th day of September
1958 in the municipality of Calauag, province of Quezon, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with Intent to dishonor, discredit and place in public
contempt and ridicule one ESTER PEÑA, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously utter tte following words and expressions in
the presence of and within the hearing of many people directed to the
said Ester Peña, to wit:

“PARE, MASDAN MO LAMANG
AT PAKINGGAN KUNG SI ESTER AY SISIGAW NG ARUY. ALAM MO, SIYA ANG
KUMULAM SA ANAK KONG SI LITA. NGAYON, SA PAGGAMOT NG HERBOLARYO, KAPAG
SI LITA AY SASAMPALIN 0 SUSUNTUKIN NG HERBOLARYO, ANG MASASAKTAN AY SI
ESTER. PAKINGGAN MO AT SISIGAW SIYA NG ARUY, HINDI NA AKO UULI,
PAIIGIHIN KO NA.” (G. R. No. L-20757).”

“The
undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses DULCE SARIO of the crime of Oral
Defamation, defined and punished under Article 358 of the Revised Penal
Code, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 14th day
of September 1958, in the municipality of Calauag, province of Quezon,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said Accused with intent to dishonor, discredit and place in public
contempt and ridicule one Ester Pefla, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously utter in a loud voice the following
insulting defamatory words in the presence of and within the hearing of
several persons directed to the said Ester Peña:

“ANG
AMO MO AY ASWANG AT MANGKUKULAM, HINDI MO LAMANG NALALAMAN NA GANYAN
ANG IYONG KASAMAHAN. SABIHIN MO SA IYONG AMO NA SI ESTER PEÑA NA SIYA
AY ASWANG AT MANGKUKULAM, SIYA ANG KUMULAM KAY LITA.” (G. R. No.
L-20758).”

“The undersigned Provincial Fiscal
accuses CARMEN SARIO of the crime of Oral Defamation, defined and
punished under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as
follows:

“That on or about the 14th day of September 1958,
in the municipality of Calauag, province of Quezon, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said Accused, with
intent to dishonor, discredit and place in public contempt and ridicule
one Ester Peña, did then and there willfully unlawfully and feloniously
utter the following insulting defamatory words and expressions in the
presence of and within the hearing of many people directed to the said
Ester Peña, to wit:

“TALAGANG ASWANG AT
MANGKUKULAM ANG AMO MO. KINULAM NIYA SI LITA MAKAHIL AY KASAPAKAT KA AT
IKAW AY BICOL.” (G. R. No. L-20759).”

According
to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the public and malicious
imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status or circumstances tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead, is libelous.

The issue is whether the statements attributed to appellees
may be considered libelous imputations under the said provision. Each
of the six informations accuses the defendant therein of having said
that the complainant was a “mangkukulam” and/or had practiced “kulam.”

The
Filipino word “kulam” means “witchcraft, sorcery” (p. 66, National
Language – English Vocabulary, published by the Institute of National
Language, while “mang” is “a prefix used to express oneself in or
assumption of” (p. 109, id.). In other words, a “mangkukulam” is a
witch, or one who practices witchcraft. On the other hand, the English
term “witch” is defined as “one who practices the black art, or magic;
one regarded as possessing supernatural or magical power by compact
with an evil spirit, especially with the devil; a sorcerer or sorceress
– now applied chiefly or only to women” (p. 2939, Webster’s New
International Dictionary, second edition); and “witchcraft” is “the
practice or art of witches; the practice of black magic; sorcery;
enchantments; intercourse with evil spirits; also an instance of such
practice” (p. 2939, id.). “Sorcery” is defined as “the use of power
gained from the assistance or control of evil spirits, especially for
divining; divination by black magic; necromancy; witchcraft” (p. 2400,
id.).

The word “mangkukulam” is undoubtedly an epithet of
opprobrium. To say that complainant is a witch and sorceress is to
impute to her a vice, condition or status that is dishonorable and
contemptible since it accuses her of having employed the black art; of
possessing supernatural power by reason of a covenant with evil spirits: and of having trafficked with the devil.

According
to the lower court, to call another a “mangkukulam” or “witch” is not a
malicious imputation because in this modern age nobody believes anymore
in witches and witchcraft. The truth of this statement is open to
question: the very declarations made by appellees, as alleged in the
several informations against them, attest to the contrary. In any event
the imputed vice or defect need not be real or existing in order that
the imputation may be punishable; an imaginary vice or defect is
sufficient (Article 353, Revised Penal Code). And while belief In the
existence of witches may have become passe nevertheless the terms
“mangkukulam” and “witch” have accepted meanings from which it is clear
that they are terms of derision, and foe one to be so labelled is to be
an object of contempt, even of odium.

The information in G.
R. No. L-20754 alleges that appellee Carmen Sario not only called the
complainant a “mangkukulam,” but also attributed to her the death
through witchcraft of three persons. There is here, therefore, an
imputation of a crime. The information is G. R. No. L-20759 charges the
same appellee with having also called the complainant an “aswang,”
which is defined as “an injurious and evil character believed to be
capable of assuming various and different forms, especially that of a
dog, and harassing usually in the depth of night women who are about to
give birth” (p. 37, National Language-English Vocabulary, published by
the Institute of National Language). The tern, like “mangkukulam,” is
an offensive and malicious one.

The information in G. R. No.
L-20755 accuses Dulce Sario of having stated that the complainant
inherited her power of witchcraft from her father and that she had
probably bequeathed it to her child, who had become thinner as a
consequence. The imputation is derogatory, as it charges the
complainant with having taught her child evil practices — an act which
is inBooral and highly reprehensible. The Information in G- R. No.
L-20758 avers that the same appellee also called Ester Pefla an
“aswang.”

Likewise derogatory are the imputations averred in
the informations subject of G. R. No. L-20756 and G. R. No. L-20757,
wherein the accused are charged with having said that it was Ester
Pefla who had practiced witchcraft on a certain Lita, who is the
daughter of Francisco Sario, accused in the last mentioned case.

Appellees cite the rule that “libel” differs from “slander” in that a
publication may be libelous although if spoken orally it would not be
slanderous (Cooley, Torts, 2d ed., 240; Odgers, Libel & Slander, 2d
ed., 3; Dexter vs. Spear, 7 Fed. Cas. 624, 4 Mason 115). They
seem to intimate that the imputations might constitute libel if they
had been written, but since they were made orally they do not
constitute slander. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
For in themselves the imputations in question fall within the meaning
of oral defamation or slander punished by Article 358 of the Revised
Penal Code.

The order of dismissal appealed from Is set
aside, and the cases returned to the lower court for further
proceedings. Costs against appellees.

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