Title
People vs. Uba
Case
G.R. No. L-8596
Decision Date
May 18, 1956
The People appealed the acquittal of Juliana and Calixta Uba for serious oral defamation due to a material error in the information naming the wrong offended party. The Supreme Court upheld dismissal but ordered a new information to charge the correct victim.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8596)

Facts:

The People of the Philippines v. Juliana Uba and Calixta Uba, G.R. No. L-8596, May 18, 1956, the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.

On August 1, 1952, Demetria Somod-ong filed a complaint before the Justice of the Peace of Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental, accusing Juliana Uba and Calixta Uba of uttering defamatory words against her; the complaint was supported by affidavits of Pastora Somod-ong, Marciano Calibog, and Anacoreta Rocaldo. The justice of the peace found probable cause and forwarded the case to the Court of First Instance, where the provincial fiscal filed an information for serious oral defamation. The information, however, erroneously named Pastora Somod-ong (Demetria’s mother) as the offended party instead of Demetria.

At trial in the Court of First Instance both Pastora and Demetria testified. Pastora said that it was her daughter Demetria who was insulted; Demetria corroborated that the accused had called her lascivious and a prostitute. Two other prosecution witnesses gave similar testimony identifying Demetria as the person insulted. After the prosecution rested, counsel for the accused moved to dismiss on the ground that the information charged Pastora as offended while all proof pointed to insults against Demetria. The trial judge ordered written submissions, sustained the accused’s motion, and entered judgment acquitting Juliana and Calixta Uba for variance between the information and the proof.

The Solicitor General appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court, arguing the variance was clerical and amendable under Section 13 of Rule 106; alternatively...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Did the trial court err in dismissing the information for serious oral defamation on the ground of variance between the allegations in the information and the evidence presented at trial?
  • If dismissal was improper, could the information simply be amended to change the name of the offended party to conform to the evidence, or must the fiscal file a new information cha...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.