Case Summary (G.R. No. 108027)
Factual Background and Procedural History
On January 22, 1966, Hong Din Chu was charged with grave oral defamation concerning remarks made against a married woman, Mercedes Japco Ong. The specific phrases that constituted the alleged defamatory remarks were that her daughter was a prostitute and insinuated that Mercedes herself was a prostitute. Chu was arraigned on December 28, 1966, and pleaded not guilty. Multiple postponements occurred as efforts were made towards an amicable settlement. On April 14, 1967, Hong Din Chu filed a motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that the case should have been initiated by the offended party since the alleged offense (adultery) could not be prosecuted ex officio.
Legal Basis for Dismissal
The trial court granted the dismissal on May 8, 1967, asserting that under Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, a complaint for defamation concerning an offense that could not be prosecuted ex officio (like adultery) must originate from the offended party. It noted that the information against Hong Din Chu was filed by an Assistant City Fiscal without the signature of Mercedes Japco Ong, the alleged offended party.
Appeal and Legal Argumentation
The prosecution appealed the dismissal, contending that the remarks made by the accused did impute the commission of a public crime, specifically prostitution. Thus, they argued that the information filed by the Assistant City Fiscal was legally sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the trial court.
Distinction Between Prostitution and Adultery
A pivotal point in the court's analysis was the distinction between the alleged offense of prostitution and that of adultery. The court emphasized that while both are related to moral offenses, they occupy different legal categories. Prostitution is classified as a public crime against public morals, whereas adultery is a private offense. The essential characteristic of prostitution involves pecuniary motivation for engaging in sexual acts, which is different from the concept of a married woman committing adultery.
Court's Conclusion and Ruling
The court concluded that the derogatory statements attributed
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 108027)
Case Overview
- The case centers on an appeal from the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing a complaint in Criminal Case No. 81257 due to alleged lack of jurisdiction.
- The defendant, Hong Din Chu, was charged with grave oral defamation for remarks made against Mercedes Japco Ong.
Incident and Charges
- The charges stemmed from statements made on November 21, 1965, wherein the accused allegedly stated: "Your daughter is a prostitute and she is a prostitute because you too are a prostitute."
- The remarks were deemed derogatory and intended to impeach the virtue, honor, and reputation of the complainant, who was described as a married woman of good moral character and high social standing.
- The information filed against the accused described the remarks as false and highly offensive, leading to public discredit and ridicule of the complainant.
Proceedings Before the Trial Court
- The accused was arraigned on December 28, 1966, and pleaded not guilty.
- The case experienced several postponements as efforts were made for an amicable settlement.
- On April 14, 1967, the accused moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the complaint should have been initiated by the offended party since it involved an offense (adultery) that could not be prosecuted de oficio.
Dismissal of the Case
- On May 8, 1967, the trial court dismissed the case, agreeing with the accused's reasoning that the information was i