1053, 1068 (1996), the Court modified the penalty imposed upon petitioner, an officer of a homeowners’ affiliation, for the crime of libel from imprisonment and fantastic in the amount of P200.00, to tremendous only of P3,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, for the rationale that he wrote the libelous article merely to defend his honor towards the malicious messages that earlier circulated around the subdivision, công ty xây nhà trọn gói which he thought was the handiwork of the private complainant. Aggrieved by the aforequoted article, the non-public complainant initiated the necessary complaint against the petitioner, and on May 25, 1984, an Information was filed earlier than the trial court charging the petitioner with libel. On January 7, 1992, complainant filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur a criminal complaint towards petitioner for slander by deed. In rejecting the aforesaid argument, the Court held that although as a rule, it’s the fitting and duty of a citizen to make a complaint of any misconduct on the pant of public officials, which comes to his discover, to those charged with supervision over them, «such complaints ought to be addressed solely to some official having jurisdiction to inquire into the fees, or power to redress the grievance or has some duty to perform or curiosity in connection therewith.» In the moment case, none of the homeowners for whom the publication was printed was vested with the ability of supervision over the non-public complainant or the authority to analyze tCông ty xây dựng-online.de»>version.
However, when he returned the identical three days later, complainant noticed that several papers were lacking which included official communications from the Civil Service Commission and Regional Office, Department of Agriculture, and a copy of the complaint by the Rural Bank of Digos towards petitioner. After trial, on September 22, 1994, the Municipal Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur rendered resolution discovering the accused guilty of the offense charged and sentenced the accused to five (5) months and eleven (11) days to two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days and to pay personal complainant the amount of Five THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS as ethical damages, Five THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS attorney’s charges and to reimburse her the price of go well with. The principal is the sum of money borrowed to purchase a home. On December 6, 1991, petitioner borrowed from complainant the records of his 201 file. Upon instruction of her superior officer, Honorio Lumain, complainant despatched a memorandum to petitioner asking him to elucidate why his 201 file was returned with lacking documents.
The circumstances under which the subject article was published by the petitioner buttressed the inference that petitioner was animated solely by revenge towards the personal complainant on account of the leaflet entitled «Supalpal si Sazon,’ earlier circulated among the homeowners as properly as the writings near the entrance gate of the subdivision, all of which petitioner believed to be the handiwork of the private complainant. The existence of malice actually could also be «shown by extrinsic proof that the defendant bore a grudge in opposition to the offended get together, or that there was rivalry or sick-feeling between them which existed on the date of the publication of the defamatory imputation or that the defendant had an intention to injure the reputation of the offended occasion as proven by the words used and the circumstances attending the publication of the defamatory imputation». The Court stated that the overall rule laid down in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code offers that «every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even when it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown «. » was seen boldly written on the walls close to the entrance gate of the subdivision.
Meanwhile, in response to the election protest, the EMO-HFC ordered the PML-BLCA to conduct a referendum to be supervised by the EMO-HFC. The non-public complainant misplaced in said election. The info of the case confirmed that complainant Norma Capintoy and petitioner Quirico Mari were co-employees within the Department of Agriculture, with office at Digos, Davao del Sur, though complainant occupied a higher place. The Supreme Court found the petitioner responsible past affordable doubt of serious slander by deed defined underneath Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code however as an alternative sentenced him to pay a effective of P1,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. It thus affirmed the choice of the Court of Appeals «with the modification that, in lieu of imprisonment and effective, the penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner shall be a nice of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) PESOS with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency». On June 19, 1995, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. In due time, petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court. This was definitely indicative of malice in reality on the a part of the petitioner.
Автор публикации
