G.R. No. 212416 - Degamo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

This case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The petition challenges the decision of the Court of Appeals rendered in CA-G.R. CR No. 10507 and the subsequent resolution denying the motion for reconsideration dated January 22, 1992.
The case traces back to the Regional Trial Court, Manolo-Fortich, Bukidnon, which originally found petitioner guilty in Criminal Case No. 979 for the crime of grave oral defamation.

The 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Manolo Fortich - Libona, Bukidnon, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of grave oral defamation.

The petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, specifying a minimum of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its maximum period and a maximum of one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional in its minimum period.
Additionally, petitioner was ordered to pay attorney’s fees, moral damages, and costs to the complainant.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision on the substantive finding of guilt but modified the penalty imposed.

The penalty was adjusted to an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from three (3) months of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional as maximum.

The petitioner was charged with grave oral defamation based on the utterance of highly derogatory and insulting words within hearing distance of several witnesses.

The defamatory statements included phrases in the local dialect intended to humiliate and malign the complainant’s character.
The words used were of a nature that, according to previous jurisprudence, were meant “to strike deep into the character of the victim.”

The complainant was 61 years old.
He had served as a public school teacher for 32 years, commanding a high social standing and deserving of respect.

The Court of Appeals found that the petitioner’s utterances were calculated—if not wholly premeditated—to harm the complainant’s reputation.
It was determined that there was no provocation on the part of the complainant, nor were the statements made in a mere heat of anger or momentary obfuscation.
The petitioner argued that, at most, she should be liable only for the crime of slight oral defamation, contending that the utterances were made impulsively rather than with calculated intent.

The petitioner questioned both the evaluation of the evidence and the consequent qualification of the offense as grave oral defamation rather than slight oral defamation.
A further issue was raised concerning the appropriateness of the penalties applied by the lower courts:

The Regional Trial Court was criticized for fixing the minimum penalty in excess.
The Court of Appeals was faulted for erroneously enhancing the maximum penalty beyond the legally prescribed limits.

The premeditation and calculated nature of the petitioner’s defamatory statements.
The absence of any provocation by the complainant.
The determination that the statements were not merely the product of a temporary heat of anger or obfuscation.

Whether the offense committed should properly be classified as grave oral defamation rather than slight oral defamation, particularly given:

The special circumstances surrounding the complainant’s age and public status.
The impact of the petitioner’s statements, which were deemed to have deeply impugned the character of the complainant.

Whether the imposition of the penalty by the lower courts complies with the requirements of the law:

The Regional Trial Court's imposition of the minimum term.
The Court of Appeals' modification increasing the maximum term.
The correct application of dividing the penalty into three periods as mandated by law.