Case Summary (R. G. No. 39196)

Incident Overview

On the morning of August 24, 1932, in Manila, an altercation occurred between the appellant, Stanley J. Willimont, and a traffic police officer, Leon Somera, at the intersection of Ayala Boulevard and Taft Avenue. The appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the officer's performance, indicating he would report the officer's negligence to his superior. After initially leaving the scene, Willimont returned and verbally insulted the officer, stating, "What a hell you are, you are a monkey traffic cop."

• Incident occurred on August 24, 1932, in Manila.
• Appellant had a confrontation with traffic officer Leon Somera.
• Willimont accused the officer of negligence and threatened to report him.
• Upon returning, Willimont insulted the officer verbally.

Legal Proceedings

Following the incident, Willimont was charged in the Municipal Court of Manila for violating Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, which pertains to oral defamation. The Municipal Court found him guilty and imposed a fine of P10, along with costs. Willimont appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance, which upheld the Municipal Court's ruling. Subsequently, he escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

• Willimont was charged with violating Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.
• The Municipal Court convicted him and imposed a P10 fine.
• The Court of First Instance confirmed the Municipal Court's decision.
• Willimont appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Argument

The appellant contended that Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code was not applicable to his case. He argued that both oral and written defamation require publicity to be punishable, as stipulated in Article 353. Since the derogatory remarks were made in the presence of only the officer and himself, with no third parties hearing the comments, Willimont asserted that the element of publicity was absent, thus negating the applicability of Article 358.

• Willimont argued that Article 358 does not apply due to lack of publicity.
• Article 353 requires that defamation must be public to be punishable.
• The remarks were made privately, with only the officer present.

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court found m...continue reading