G.R. No. L-57103 - People vs. Orcullo

A petition for certiorari was filed by the City Fiscal and Assistant City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro City.
The petition sought to set aside a dismissal order and reinstate Criminal Case No. 40117, thereby allowing the case to be tried on the merits.

On September 4, 1978, a special counsel in the Office of the City Fiscal filed an information with the City Court of Cagayan de Oro, Branch I.
The information charged respondent Venida Peralta (also known as Edat Peralta) with oral defamation arising from an alleged defamatory statement.

It was alleged that on or about August 17, 1978, at 7:00 PM at Gumamela Extension Street, Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City:

The accused uttered derogatory words aimed at Lydia Flores.
The exact wording was: "Hostess ug nangabit, bisan unsa lang oten and nakapaslak."

The statement was intended to cast Lydia Flores into undue shame, public ridicule, discredit, and contempt, thereby causing her significant damage and prejudice.
The language used was argued to be not only defamatory but also false in nature.
The information docketed the case as Criminal Case No. 40117, invoking Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.

On November 3, 1978, during arraignment, the accused-respondent pleaded not guilty.
On February 2, 1981, the accused filed a motion to quash the case on the ground that the imputation amounted to a private crime.

The contention was that the offending statement, when read as an imputation of adultery, could only be prosecuted upon a complaint by the offended party.

On February 10, 1981, Respondent Judge, Hon. Antonio A. Orcullo, dismissed Criminal Case No. 40117 based on this ground.
A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed on February 27, 1981 and was denied on March 11, 1981.

The specific wording, including the term "paramour," clearly imputed the commission of adultery against Lydia Flores.
Since adultery is a private crime (as provided in paragraph 5, Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code), the information should only proceed by a complaint from the offended party.

The derogatory remarks were more indicative of prostitution rather than adultery.
The term “hostess” carried a notorious connotation associated with women engaged in prostitution, typically working in nightclubs or similar establishments.
The phrase “any kind of penis had penetrated your vagina” further described acts typical of prostitution.
Even if the language could imply adultery, the predominant imputation was of prostitution—a public crime prosecutable ex officio.

The Solicitor General cited previous decisions such as People v. Hong Din Chu, People v. Santos, Mangila v. Lantin, People v. Yu, and People v. Padilla for support.

Whether the phrase "Hostess ug nangabit, bisan unsa lang oten and nakapaslak" clearly imputes the commission of prostitution or adultery.
Whether the mention of the word “paramour” sufficiently establishes that adultery was being alleged.

Whether the offense charged, being potentially a hybrid of a private crime (adultery) and a public crime (prostitution), may be prosecuted de officio.
Whether the lack of an explicit complaint from the offended party should preclude prosecution if the derogatory remarks were read as imputing prostitution.

Whether the order dismissing Criminal Case No. 40117 was proper in light of the interpretation of the imputed crime.
Whether the dismissal impaired the public interest in prosecuting crimes against public morals.