Words and Actions: Understanding Slander by Deed in Philippine Law

TLDR: The Supreme Court clarifies that while harsh words can be offensive, they don’t automatically constitute slander by deed. Physical actions, like choking, combined with those words, are needed to prove the crime and warrant a conviction. Even then, the court may opt for a fine instead of imprisonment based on the circumstances.

G.R. No. 127694, May 31, 2000

Imagine being publicly berated and physically assaulted by a colleague at work. The humiliation and damage to your reputation can be devastating. But does this situation automatically qualify as a criminal act of slander? Philippine law distinguishes between spoken defamation and “slander by deed,” where actions amplify the defamatory impact. This case explores the boundaries of slander by deed and the factors courts consider when determining guilt and appropriate penalties.

This case revolves around a workplace dispute that escalated into a verbal and physical altercation. The key legal question is whether the petitioner’s actions – shouting invectives and allegedly choking the complainant – constituted serious slander by deed under Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code.

Defining Slander by Deed in the Philippines

Slander, in general, involves making defamatory statements that damage a person’s reputation. Under Philippine law, slander can be committed orally or through actions. Slander by deed, specifically, refers to defamation committed through physical acts, gestures, or other forms of conduct that are intended to insult or humiliate another person.

Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code addresses slander by deed, stating that “the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not expressly falling within any other article of this Code, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.”

The crucial element is that the act must be intended to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. The severity of the act determines the penalty.

The Case: Mari vs. Court of Appeals

The case began with a seemingly minor issue: missing documents from the petitioner’s personnel file. Norma Capintoy, the complainant, was instructed by her superior to ask Quirico Mari, the petitioner, for an explanation regarding the missing documents.

Instead of providing an explanation, Mari confronted Capintoy, allegedly shouting offensive words at her, banging a chair, and choking her. This incident led to Capintoy filing a criminal complaint for slander by deed.

The case proceeded through the following stages:

• Municipal Trial Court (MTC): Found Mari guilty of slander by deed, sentencing him to an indeterminate sentence and ordering him to pay damages and attorney’s fees.
• Regional Trial Court (RTC): Affirmed the MTC’s decision in toto, adopting the trial court’s findings of fact.
• Court of Appeals (CA): Affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of one month and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as maximum.
• Supreme Court (SC): Reviewed the CA’s decision, focusing on the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the appropriateness of the penalty.

The Supreme Court emphasized that factual findings of the Court of Appeals, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally binding and not reviewable. However, the Court noted errors in the lower courts’ application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Court stated, “However, we regret to note that the Municipal Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur, the Regional Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur and even the Court of Appeals erred in the proper application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.”

The Court also pointed out the lack of a properly established aggravating circumstance. “There was no finding that the evidence proved that the accused in fact deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim, or showed manifest disrespect to the offended woman or displayed some specific insult or disrespect to her womanhood.”

Impact and Lessons from Mari vs. Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision and instead sentenced Mari to pay a fine of P1,000.00. This decision highlights several important considerations in slander by deed cases.

The ruling underscores that not every offensive act constitutes slander by deed. There must be a clear intent to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt through the action. The Supreme Court’s decision also serves as a reminder of the importance of correctly applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Key Lessons:

• Intent is Key: To be considered slander by deed, the act must be intended to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt.
• Context Matters: The circumstances surrounding the act are crucial in determining whether it constitutes slander by deed.
• Proper Penalties: Courts must correctly apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law when imposing penalties.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is the difference between oral defamation and slander by deed?

A: Oral defamation involves defamatory statements made verbally, while slander by deed involves defamatory acts or conduct.

Q: What are the elements of slander by deed?

A: The elements are: (1) an act; (2) that is not expressly defined in other articles of the Revised Penal Code; (3) that casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person; and (4) the act is done with the intention of causing such dishonor, discredit, or contempt.

Q: Can words alone constitute slander by deed?

A: Generally, no. Words must be accompanied by an action intended to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt.

Q: What is the penalty for serious slander by deed?

A: Under Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from P200 to P1,000.

Q: How does the Indeterminate Sentence Law apply to slander by deed cases?

A: The court must impose an indeterminate sentence, with a minimum term within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense, and a maximum term within the range of the penalty prescribed for the offense, considering any attending circumstances.

Q: What factors do courts consider when determining the penalty for slander by deed?

A: Courts consider the severity of the act, the intent of the offender, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and defamation cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.