A.M. No. 1439-MJ - Revita vs. Rimando

Theresita O. Revita, a 35-year-old postal employee, filed a complaint against Lorenza A. Vinas, a 44-year-old high school principal, alleging grave slander.
The case originally commenced in the municipal court of Lubuagan, Kalinga-Apayao, where Judge Cornelio U. Costales conducted the preliminary examination.

On September 2, 1974, a police investigator, acting on behalf of Mrs. Revita, filed a complaint charging Mrs. Vinas with grave slander.
During the preliminary examination on January 25, 1975, Judge Costales determined that the offense committed was light oral defamation rather than grave slander.
Judge Costales opted not to issue a warrant of arrest but instead set the case for arraignment and trial on February 19, 1975, with service of the order on February 4, 1975.

A private prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court could not alter the complaint by redefining the gravity of the offense and requesting the issuance of an arrest warrant.
The motion for reconsideration was not scheduled for hearing, and the defense did not receive a copy of the motion.
Mrs. Vinas attempted to file a bail bond for an unspecified amount, which was not acted upon by Judge Costales.

On May 5, 1975, Judge Costales inhibited himself from the case due to issues of delicadeza, as suggested by a telegram from the complainant’s husband indicating bias.
The Court, via its resolution on August 5, 1975, approved the designation of Judge Sergio F. Rimando to handle the case in place of Judge Costales.
Judge Rimando, acting at the defense counsel’s request, reset the arraignment and hearing on October 23, 1975.
At the arraignment, Mrs. Vinas pleaded not guilty, and her counsel moved orally to quash the complaint on several grounds, demanding a written motion within thirty days supported by a memorandum.

Mrs. Vinas was denied due process by being arraigned for grave slander while Judge Costales had already ruled the offense as light oral defamation.
The alleged imputation “Garampang ka nga babae” was not inherently libelous.
The complaint did not conform substantially to the prescribed form as the defamatory imputation was not translated into English or the national language.

Atty. Tanding B. Odiem, the private prosecutor, opposed the motion to dismiss.
Although the motion to dismiss was set for oral argument on three separate occasions, the oral argument was never held, and the resolution was made solely on the written submissions.
On April 29, 1976, Judge Rimando dismissed the complaint.

Mrs. Revita later charged Judge Rimando with gross ignorance of the law, contending:

The dismissal of the complaint was improperly handled without obtaining written conformity from the fiscal regarding the motion to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss was resolved without duly hearing the parties’ oral arguments.
The “bail bond” filed by Mrs. Vinas was irregular, being incomplete, ineffectual, and not properly approved by the court.

The Court noted that the alleged irregularity regarding the bail bond was attributable to Judge Costales, not Judge Rimando.
The dispute centered on whether the translation provided by affidavits (which translated “Garampang ka nga babae” to mean “You flirt and fool around with men”) was sufficient to prove the defamatory nature of the imputation.

Whether the dismissal of the complaint by Judge Rimando violated due process by failing to secure the fiscal’s written conformity on the motion to dismiss.
Whether the resolution of the motion to dismiss without holding an oral argument deprived Mrs. Vinas of her right to be heard.

Whether the imputation “Garampang ka nga babae” should be considered non-defamatory, given that it was allegedly comparable to the expression “Putang ina mo,” which had been previously treated as an expression of anger or displeasure.
Whether the absence of a translation in the original complaint affected its conformity with the prescribed pleading form.
Whether the subsequent affidavits providing an English translation sufficiently rectified the alleged defect in the complaint’s form.

Whether Judge Rimando’s decision to dismiss the complaint on the aforementioned grounds constituted gross ignorance of the law.
Whether the dismissal was merely an error of judicial judgment or indicative of a deeper failure to perform the duties with the requisite neutrality and diligence.