Facts:

On August 24, 1932, in Manila, an incident occurred involving the appellant, Stanley J. Willimont, and a traffic police officer named Leon Somera. The confrontation began when Willimont expressed his belief that Officer Somera was negligent in his duties at the intersection of Ayala Boulevard and Taft Avenue. Willimont indicated that he would report Somera's conduct to his superior. After initially leaving the scene, Willimont returned a few minutes later and directed derogatory remarks at the officer, specifically stating, "What a hell you are, you are a monkey traffic cop." As a result of these comments, Willimont was charged in the Municipal Court of Manila for violating Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, which pertains to oral defamation. The Municipal Court found him guilty and imposed a fine of P10, along with costs. Willimont appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance, which upheld the Municipal Court's ruling. Subsequentl...

Facts:

Incident Details:
On the morning of August 24, 1932, in Manila, Stanley J. Willimont (the appellant) had an altercation with Leon Somera, a traffic police officer stationed at the intersection of Ayala Boulevard and Taft Avenue. Willimont believed that the officer was negligent in performing his duties and informed him that he would report the matter to his superior. Willimont then left the scene.

Return to the Scene:
A few minutes later, Willimont returned to the same location and directed the following words at the police officer: "What a hell you are, you are a monkey traffic cop."

Legal Proceedings:
Willimont was charged in the Municipal Court of Manila for violating Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code (oral defamation) and was sentenced to pay a fine of P10, plus court costs. He appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance, which affirmed the Municipal Court's ruling. Willimont then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Admitted Facts:
It was established that Willimont uttered the aforementioned words to the police officer. It was also admitted by the prosecution that no one else was present at the time, and the words were not heard by any other person besides Willimont and the officer.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

The Court held that for oral defamation to be punishable under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, there must be publicity, as required by Article 353. Publicity means that the defamatory words must be heard by a third party. In this case, the defamatory statement was made only in the presence of the appellant and the offended party (the police officer), with no third party present to hear the words. Since there was no publicity, the essential element of the crime of oral defamation was lacking. Consequently, Article 358 could not be applied, and the appellant was absolved of the charge.