- Petitioner
- Narcisa Tul-id
- Respondent
- People
- Citation
- G.R. No. L-46186
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decided
- July 21, 1977
Proper penalty for slight oral defamation - whether imprisonment or fine should be imposed
Summary
The Supreme Court modified the penalty in a slight oral defamation case involving a real estate broker who uttered insulting words against a lawyer during a heated confrontation over money. The Court of Appeals had already reduced the charge from grave to slight oral defamation, recognizing provocation and the heat of anger circumstances. The Supreme Court, upon the Solicitor General's recommendation, showed leniency by replacing the 11-day imprisonment with a P200 fine, considering the petitioner's advanced age (over 65), gender, and widowed status. The case demonstrates judicial discretion in penalty modification and the court's consideration of personal circumstances in sentencing, while maintaining the P500 damages award for the offended party.
Focus of dispute
Proper penalty for slight oral defamation - whether imprisonment or fine should be imposed
Legal facts
Petitioner Narcisa Tul-id, a real estate broker in desperate need of money, went to complainant Atty. Pedro T. Garcia's law office with her daughter to demand P150.00 that Garcia received from Araceli Escudero. Tul-id expected a P1,500 commission from negotiating a property sale but had not received payment. Garcia denied her demand, claiming the money was attorney's fees, and jokingly remarked that Tul-id was evading proper taxes as a real estate broker. This provoked Tul-id, who has a quick temper, leading her to utter insulting words against Garcia in his office.
Judgement and reasoning
Court of Appeals (CA): Reduced the crime from grave oral defamation to slight oral defamation, finding that insulting words were uttered 'in the heat of anger with some provocation on the part of the offended party.' Imposed arresto menor in its medium period or eleven (11) days of imprisonment with P500.00 as damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Found no mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the crime.
Supreme Court (SC): Modified the penalty by removing the 11-day prison term and imposing P200 fine instead, accepting the Solicitor General's recommendation for leniency considering petitioner's age (above 65), sex, and status as a widow. Maintained the P500 damages award. Expressed hope that petitioner may have mellowed with passing years and learned to control her temper.
Trial Court: Found petitioner guilty of grave oral defamation and imposed penalty of one month and one day of arresto mayor as minimum to four months and one day of arresto mayor as maximum with P1,500.00 as moral and/or consequential damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.