Title
People vs. Uba
Case
G.R. No. L-8596
Decision Date
May 18, 1956
The People appealed the acquittal of Juliana and Calixta Uba for serious oral defamation due to a material error in the information naming the wrong offended party. The Supreme Court upheld dismissal but ordered a new information to charge the correct victim.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-8596)

Procedural History

On August 1, 1952, Demetria Somod-ong initiated legal proceedings against Juliana and Calixta Uba, asserting that they had publicly made defamatory remarks about her. The case was supported by affidavits from witnesses including Pastora Somod-ong (Demetria’s mother), Marciano Calibog, and Anacoreta Rocaldo. After establishing probable cause, the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance, where the formal charge of serious oral defamation was filed. Notably, the information erroneously identified Pastora Somod-ong as the offended party rather than Demetria.

Testimonies and Trial

During the trial, both Demetria and her mother, Pastora Somod-ong, testified against the Ubas, with Pastora affirming that the insults were directed at her daughter. Additional witnesses corroborated this assertion by describing derogatory terms used by the defendants towards Demetria. Upon conclusion of the prosecution's presentation, the defense moved for dismissal on the basis that the charges were improperly formulated against the wrong offended party.

Legal Argument and Trial Court Decision

The trial judge entertained written submissions related to the motion to dismiss and ultimately acquitted the Uba sisters based on the discrepancy in the identification of the offended party. The Solicitor General contested this decision, arguing that the trial court should have permitted an amendment to the information to correct the identity of the offended party, following Section 13 of Rule 106. This section permits amendments to an information for clerical errors or variances, without leaving the defendant prejudiced.

Court of Appeals Reasoning

The appellate court agreed that a clerical error likely occurred in naming Pastora instead of Demetria as the offended party. However, the court emphasized that this mistake pertained to a material aspect of the case, significantly affecting the identification of the offense charged. The distinction between the actions directed at different individuals is critical, since the legal nuances regarding defamation vary depending on the target of the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.