G.R. No. 183623 - Agbayani vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 183623)

Petitioner and Respondent Roles

Agbayani filed a criminal complaint for grave oral defamation (I.S. No. 07-0013) against Genabe before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City. The City Prosecutor found probable cause for grave oral defamation; Genabe appealed to the DOJ, which reversed and directed withdrawal of the information. Agbayani sought certiorari relief from the Court of Appeals; the CA dismissed her petition. Agbayani then sought review in the Supreme Court.

Key Dates

Incident and complaint: late December 2006 (complaint dated December 29, 2006).
City Prosecutor resolution finding probable cause: February 12, 2007.
DOJ resolution reversing City Prosecutor and directing withdrawal: May 17, 2007; motion for reconsideration denied June 25, 2007.
Court of Appeals decision denying certiorari: March 27, 2008; motion for reconsideration denied July 3, 2008.
Supreme Court decision under review: petition denied (Supreme Court proceedings culminating in the decision referenced).

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (case decided after 1990). Statutory and regulatory provisions central to the decision: Article 358, Revised Penal Code (slander); Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), particularly Sections 408 and 409 on barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay); DOJ Circular No. 70 (2000 National Prosecution Service Rules on Appeal) including Sections 3, 5, 6, 7 and 12; Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 14-93 (guidelines on barangay conciliation). Governing procedural standard for Court review: Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court and the high threshold for overturning prosecutorial determinations (grave abuse of discretion).

Antecedent Facts and Alleged Utterances

Agbayani alleged that, in the workplace and in the presence of court employees, Genabe uttered defamatory statements accusing Agbayani of acting like a lawyer, selling cases, being a judge’s “tirador,” and taunting her about high blood and death, the exact Filipino-language reproduction of which was included in the complaint. Both parties were residents of Las Piñas City and co-employees at RTC Branch 275. The record reflects longstanding animosity between Genabe and Agbayani and an immediate provocation: Genabe was informed of a suspension for a missed deadline and was told that Agbayani had informed the presiding judge that Genabe had missed the deadline.

City Prosecutor Finding and DOJ Review

The City Prosecutor initially found probable cause for grave oral defamation. Upon Genabe’s petition for review, Undersecretary Pineda (DOJ) re-evaluated the evidence, concluded that the utterances occurred in the heat of anger and were therefore only slight oral defamation, and further concluded that the case had not complied with mandatory barangay conciliation requirements under the Local Government Code. The DOJ reversed and set aside the City Prosecutor’s resolution and directed the City Prosecutor to move for withdrawal of the information.

DOJ’s Grounds for Dismissal

The DOJ relied on two principal grounds: (1) substantive—under the circumstances, the utterances were made in the heat of anger and thus constituted slight, not grave, oral defamation (reducing the gravity of the offense under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code); and (2) procedural—non-compliance with compulsory barangay conciliation under Sections 408 and 409 of RA 7160, because the complaint did not allege prior availment of barangay conciliation nor that the case fell within any exception to mandatory conciliation.

Court of Appeals Review and Standard Applied

The Court of Appeals dismissed Agbayani’s certiorari petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the DOJ’s action. The CA applied the high standard that a public officer’s act must be capricious, whimsical, or a patent evasion of duty to constitute grave abuse of discretion. The CA upheld the DOJ’s factual assessment (utterances made in heat of anger with provocation) and its procedural determination (failure to comply with barangay conciliation).

Assignments of Error Presented by Petitioner

Agbayani principally argued that: (1) the DOJ unfairly credited Genabe’s arguments and suppressed her comment; (2) Genabe’s petition for review to the DOJ failed to comply with Sections 5 and 6 of DOJ Circular No. 70 (defective service, lack of required attachments) and thus should have been dismissed; (3) the DOJ improperly downgraded the offense to slight oral defamation; (4) the DOJ improperly dismissed the complaint for non-compliance with the Local Government Code; and (5) the CA misapplied the mandatory nature of the DOJ Circular’s procedural requirements.

Analysis on Compliance with DOJ Circular No. 70 and Procedural Irregularity Claims

The Supreme Court affirmed that procedural rules are tools to facilitate justice and should not be applied rigidly to defeat substantive rights. The Court found substantial compliance with DOJ Circular No. 70: Genabe’s petition for review identified the parties and the case, and Agbayani was able to file a comment (demonstrating effective service). The claim that Agbayani’s Comment was suppressed and that 36 documents were surreptitiously inserted in the DOJ record constituted a serious allegation (extrinsic fraud) but was unsupported by clear and convincing evidence; moreover, several of the documents were copies of Agbayani’s own submissions and nothing in the record suggested fabrication. The DOJ’s acceptance of additional records and documents for a fuller review was within its authority.

Analysis on Admission of Post‑filing Documents and Motion to Defer Arraignment

Documents dated after the filing of the petition (e.g., motion to defer arraignment) were properly considered because DOJ Circular No. 70 requires that, if an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, a copy of the motion to defer proceedings accompany the petition. The Court relied on precedent (including Guy v. Asia United Bank and related jurisprudence) recognizing the Secretary’s and DOJ’s latitude to consider motions and evidence outside strict appeal periods and to take a second look at probable cause even after information filing, so long as there is no grave abuse of discretion and court supervision over arraignment/withdrawal is observed.

Substantive Determination: Grave vs. Slight Oral Defamation

The Court accepted the DOJ’s factual determination that the utterances were made in the heat of anger with provocation, applying the three-part inquiry used to determine gravity of slander (expressions used; personal relations between parties; special circumstances). Where provocation and extreme excitement or obfuscation are present, the utterances may constitute only slight oral defamation (punishable by lighter penalty under Article 358). The DOJ’s factual assessment, based on the record and corroborating circumstances (Genabe’s suspension notice, prior antagonism, volatile personality), was not shown to be attended by grave abuse of di

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 183623)

Case Caption and Procedural Posture

Case reported at 689 Phil. 11, Second Division, G.R. No. 183623, June 25, 2012; decision penned by Justice Reyes.
Petition for review under Rule 45 from the Decision dated March 27, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing petitioner’s certiorari and the Resolution dated July 3, 2008 denying motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 99626.
Petitioner: Leticia B. Agbayani (Agbayani). Respondents: Court of Appeals, Department of Justice (DOJ), and Loida Marcelina J. Genabe (Genabe).
Relief sought: review of DOJ resolution directing withdrawal of complaint for grave oral defamation filed by Agbayani against Genabe.

Antecedent Facts

Both parties were employees of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 275, Las Piñas City: Agbayani as Court Stenographer and Genabe as Legal Researcher II.
On December 29, 2006, Agbayani filed a criminal complaint for grave oral defamation against Genabe before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City, docketed I.S. No. 07-0013.
The complaint alleged Genabe uttered, in the presence of fellow court employees and while Agbayani was performing duties, the following statements as appearing in the record:
aANG GALING MO LETY, SINABI MO NA TINAPOS MO YUNG MARVILLA CASE, ANG GALING MO. FEELING LAWYER KA KASI, BAKIT DI KA MAGDUTY NA LANG, STENOGRAPHER KA MAGSTENO KA NA LANG, ANG GALING MO, FEELING LAWYER KA TALAGA. NAGBEBENTA KA NG KASO, TIRADOR KA NG JUDGE . SIGE HIGH BLOOD DIN KA, MAMATAY KA SANA SA HIGH BLOOD MO.a
Investigating City Prosecutor, in a Resolution dated February 12, 2007, found probable cause for filing information for grave oral defamation against Genabe.

DOJ Action on Petition for Review

Genabe filed a petition for review to the DOJ. Undersecretary Ernesto L. Pineda evaluated the record and found merit in the petition for review.
DOJ’s findings: the utterances constituted only slight oral defamation because they were made in the heat of anger and after provocation; cited Cruz v. Court of Appeals (G.R. Nos. L-56224-26, Nov. 25, 1982) for the principle that abusive remarks made in heat of anger with provocation constitute slight oral defamation.
DOJ also found non-compliance with the Mandatory Katarungang Pambarangay (barangay conciliation) requirements under Book III, Title I, Chapter 7 of R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), specifically Sections 408 and 409(d), because:
- Parties are residents of Las Piñas City;
- The workplace where the incident arose is located within that city; and
- The complaint-affidavit did not show prior referral to the barangay for conciliation, nor did it claim to be an excepted case under Section 408.
DOJ Resolution dated May 17, 2007: reversed and set aside the City Prosecutor’s Resolution; directed City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City to move for withdrawal of the information and to report action within ten (10) days from receipt.
Motion for reconsideration before the DOJ was denied in a June 25, 2007 Resolution.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling

Agbayani filed petition for certiorari with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion by the DOJ in reversing the City Prosecutor’s finding of probable cause.
The CA dismissed the petition on March 27, 2008, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the DOJ.
The CA relied on Punzalan v. Dela Peña for the standard of grave abuse of discretion: must be capricious, whimsical, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, arbitrary or despotic exercise of power, so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty.
CA denied motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated July 3, 2008.

Assignments of Error (as raised by petitioner Agbayani)

RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT DOJ DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN THE LATTER REVERSED AND SET ASIDE THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF LAS PIAS CITY.
RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENT DOJ’S FINDING THAT WHAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT COMMITTED WAS ONLY SLIGHT ORAL DEFAMATION.
RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENT DOJ’S DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991.
RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 70 (2000 NPS RULE ON APPEAL) ARE NOT MANDATORY.

Petitioner’s Contentions and Procedural Complaints

Alleged that Undersecretary Pineda unfairly relied only on respondent’s arguments and suppressed Agbayani’s Comment; claimed her Comment was missing when she examined DOJ records.
Contended that Genabe’s petition for review to the DOJ failed to comply with Sections 5 and 6 of DOJ Circular No. 70 (2000 NPS Rules on Appeal): allegedly failed to show petitioner’s name and address properly, lacked proof of service, and lacked required attachments (certified copies of complaint, affidavits, reply, documentary evidence).
Asserted irregularity and extrinsic fraud: when Genabe’s petition was filed on March 22, 2007 there were allegedly only five (5) documents attached; by DOJ resolution time, forty-one (41) documents were in the record and thirty-six (36) documents were purportedly surreptitiously inserted after filing, including Document Nos. 40 (Motion to Defer Arraignment) and 41 (court order granting same) which bore a March 23, 2007 date.
Claimed the Investigating Prosecutor’s finding of probable cause for grave oral defamation was supported by corroborating witness testimony; denied she provoked Genabe and insisted the utterances were made with malice aforethought.

Court’s Analysis on Procedural Compliance and Extrinsic Fraud Allegations

Court stated rules of procedure are instruments to facilitate justice and should not be applied rigidly to defeat substantive justice.
Sections 5 and 6 of DOJ Circular No. 70 require certain contents and att
...continue reading