Title
People vs. Orcullo
Case
G.R. No. L-57103
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1982
Venida Peralta charged with oral defamation for imputing prostitution, not adultery; case dismissed but reinstated by Supreme Court as a public crime prosecutable de oficio.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23135)

Criminal Charges and Initial Proceedings

On September 4, 1978, a special counsel from the Office of the City Fiscal filed an information against Venida Peralta in the City Court of Cagayan de Oro, alleging that she committed oral defamation against Lydia Flores. The specific remarks attributed to Peralta were deemed defamatory and were said to have caused substantial public disdain and contempt towards Flores, thereby falling under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.

Dismissal of Criminal Case

The proceedings began with the arraignment on November 3, 1978, where the accused pleaded not guilty. However, on February 2, 1981, Peralta filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the alleged crime constituted an imputation of a crime that could not be prosecuted without a complaint from the offended party. On February 10, 1981, Judge Orcullo dismissed the case, contending that oral defamation is a private crime that requires the offended party to initiate prosecution.

Solicitor General's Argument

Subsequent to the dismissal, the City Fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The Solicitor General later contended that the remarks made by Peralta not only implied adultery but specifically described actions consistent with the offense of prostitution, which is a public crime and does not require a complaint from the offended party. The Solicitor General emphasized that the nature of the comments made by Peralta indicated a broader implication relating to public morals rather than mere private offense.

Legal Interpretation of Defamatory Statements

The court's decision also considered whether the derogatory remarks indeed implied both adultery and prostitution. The distinction was crucial because prostitution is classified as a public crime that can be prosecuted ex officio. By interpreting the remarks in context, the court determined that the words used clearly imputed the act of prostitution, securing the jurisdiction of the lower court to try the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.