Case Summary (G.R. No. L-568)
Factual Background
Damaso Atienza was charged with grave oral defamation based on allegedly defamatory statements he made towards Pilar Lee, which included calling her a prostitute. The sworn complaint was duly signed by Lee and included the signature of a special counsel acting as the public prosecutor. The trial had progressed significantly, only awaiting the presentation of the defense's sur-rebuttal witness when the defense counsel moved to dismiss the case.
Legal Basis for Dismissal
The defense's motion for dismissal was grounded on a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction over the offense due to the complaint being signed by the offended party rather than by a prosecuting officer. The lower court granted this motion on March 30, 1962, citing Article VII, Section 24 of the Charter of the City of Cagayan de Oro (Republic Act No. 521), which stipulates that the City Attorney is responsible for investigating offenses and preparing the necessary informations or complaints against accused persons.
Misinterpretation of Law by Lower Court
The ruling of dismissal was based on a misapprehension of both law and fact. The court misinterpreted the cited provision as a prohibition on filing a complaint without the public prosecutor's signature. However, the law relevant to the case is Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which allows for a criminal action for defamation at the instance of the offended party when the defamation consists of the imputation of a crime that cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
Misunderstanding of Legal Precedents
The lower court's reliance on the case of People vs. Martinez was misplaced. That case merely emphasizes the necessity of a complaint by the offended party for crimes that cannot be prosecuted de oficio. The court's interpretation incorrectly suggested that a similar requirement existed for crimes that could be prosecuted de oficio. The more applicable case, Balite vs. People, clarifies that in situations of defamation attributable to crimes prosecutable de oficio, a complaint by the offended party can validly initiate prosecution.
Clarifications on Defamatory Language
The court also overlooked critical factual elements of the case. Firstly, the term "puta," while used by the defendant, does not categorically refer to the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-568)
Case Background
- The case involves an appeal from the Municipal Court of Cagayan de Oro regarding Criminal Case No. 6612.
- The defendant-appellee, Damaso Atienza, faced charges of grave oral defamation based on a sworn complaint by the offended party, Pilar Lee.
- The specific words attributed to the defendant were "Pauli na, puta ka. Oo, puta ka, puta kat bilaw," which translates to "Go home, you prostitute. Yes, you are a prostitute, really a prostitute."
Procedural History
- The trial had progressed significantly, with only the sur-rebuttal witness for the defense left to be presented when the defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss.
- The motion was predicated on the argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case since it was prosecuted upon a complaint signed by the victim rather than an information signed by the public prosecutor.
Lower Court's Ruling
- The Municipal Court dismissed the case on March 30, 1962, citing Article VII, Section 24 of the charter of the City of Cagayan de Oro (Republic Act No. 521).
- This provision mandates that the City Attorney must investigate and prepare necessary informations or complaints against accused persons.
Legal Arguments
- The defense contended that the offense of prostitution, impli