Case Summary (G.R. No. 136143)
Alleged Defamatory Utterance and Criminal Complaint
In early April 2003, Bernice Ching informed Castro that Tan intended to sue RIS officers personally. Castro allegedly replied, “OK, you too, take care and be careful talking to [Tan], that’s dangerous.” Ching relayed this to Tan, who felt his reputation was insulted. On August 21, 2003, Tan filed a complaint for grave oral defamation against Castro.
MeTC Proceedings and Conviction
Before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City, Ching consistently testified that Castro had warned her against speaking with Tan. Castro denied making the statement but did not categorically refute Ching’s account under cross-examination. The court found Ching credible and concluded Castro acted with malice to tarnish Tan’s reputation. On December 27, 2005, Castro was convicted of grave oral defamation and sentenced under the Revised Penal Code with an indeterminate penalty of one month plus one day to four months plus one day of arresto mayor.
RTC Appeal, Downgrade, and Acquittal
On appeal, the RTC upheld the factual findings but deemed the offense only slight oral defamation. It further held that Tan’s August 21, 2003 complaint was filed beyond the one-month prescription period for slight defamation, resulting in Castro’s acquittal.
CA Certiorari Petition and Reinstatement of Conviction
The OSG petitioned for certiorari before the CA, alleging the RTC gravely abused its discretion by misappreciating evidence in downgrading the offense. The CA agreed, finding the RTC’s factual evaluation deficient, and reinstated the MeTC conviction by its August 29, 2007 decision.
Supreme Court’s Double Jeopardy Analysis
Applying the 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21 and Rule 117, Sec. 7, the Supreme Court explained that an acquittal is final and constitutes double jeopardy unless the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion. Here, the OSG’s certiorari petition attacked only the RTC’s evaluation of evidence—an error of judgment—and not any jurisdictional defect. Such error cannot be corrected via Rule 65 certiorari, which is confined to cases of grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling on Grave Abuse of Discretion
Because the OSG raised no jurisdictional error, the CA ha
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 136143)
Facts of the Case
- On November 11, 2002, Reedley International School (RIS) dismissed Justin Albert Tan (Grade 12) for accumulating 34 code violations against a maximum permitted 25, including public display of affection and unbecoming conduct.
- Mr. Albert P. Tan, Justin’s father, requested reconsideration; RIS readmitted Justin but imposed “non-appealable” conditions excluding him from graduation ceremonies.
- Tan filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Education (Dep-Ed) for violations of the Manual of Regulation of Private Schools, Education Act of 1982, and Civil Code Article 19, alleging malice, bad faith and premeditation.
- Dep-Ed, after investigation, found RIS’s point-system sanctions summary and arbitrary, violating due process; it nullified the system and ordered unconditional readmission on November 20, 2002.
- Justin graduated and participated in ceremonies on March 30, 2003.
Origin of the Defamation Complaint
- In early April 2003, during a telephone call initiated by Bernice C. Ching, Mr. Tan mentioned his intent to sue RIS officers personally, including Assistant Headmaster Jerome Castro.
- Castro allegedly warned Ching: “OK, you too, take care and be careful talking to [Tan], that’s dangerous.”
- Ching relayed this to Tan, who felt insulted and believed himself depicted as capable of undesirable acts.
- On August 21, 2003, Tan filed a complaint for grave oral defamation under Revised Penal Code Article 358 before the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong.
Trial Court Proceedings (MeTC)
- Information charged Castro with grave oral defamation for uttering words of a “serious and insulting nature” against Tan on or about March 13, 2003.
- At arraignment, Castro pleaded not guilty, denied making the