Pader v. People (2000) G.R. No.

139157
8 February 2000 PARDO, J.:
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Slander (Art. 358)
SUMMARY: Escolango, a candidate for Vice Mayer in the next elections, was conversing with his political leaders at the
terrace of his home when Pader (a political opponent of Escalango) drunk, angry at his neighbor, Escolango, for
something that Escolango had done when Paders father died appeared at Escolangos gate and shouted, putang ina
mo Atty. Escolango. Napakawalanghiya mo! Escolango filed a complaint charging Pardo of having committed grave
oral defamation. The MTC convicted Escolango as charged, which conviction was affirmed by the RTC and then by
the CA. The SC granted the petition for certiorari filed by Pader the SC held that Pader was only guilty of slight oral
defamation, not serious oral defamation. The SC concluded that the defamatory words were uttered by Pader out of
resentment, not necessarily out of an intent to insult Escolango.

DOCTRINE:
Defamatory words will fall under slight or serious oral defamation, depending not only upon their sense, grammatical
significance, and accepted ordinary meaning judging them separately, but also upon the special circumstances of the
case, antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender, which might tend to prove the intention
of the offender at the time.

Putang ina mo is a common enough utterance in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather
to express anger or displeasure. In fact, more often, it is just an expletive that punctuates ones expression of profanity.

FACTS:
Atty. Benjamin Escolango (ESCOLANGO) was a candidate for vice mayor of Morong, Bataan in the 8 May 1995
Elections.
9p, 20 Apr 1995: Escolango was conversing with his political leaders at the terrace of his house.
o Rogelio Pader (PADER) a political opponent of Escolango suddenly appeared at the gate and shouted
putang ina mo Atty. Escolango. Napakawalanghiya mo!
o IMPORTANT NOTES: The SC pointed out the following in its ratio:
Escolango and Pader were neighbors;
On the evening of 20 Apr 1995, Pader was drunk; and,
Pader was angry at Escolango because of something that Escolango had done when Paders
father had died. (The SC did not elaborate on the incident.)
Escolango filed a complaint against Pader for grave oral defamation, with the MTC of Bagac, Bataan.
MTC: convicted Pader for grave oral defamation. (1 mo., 1 day to 1 yr. imprisonment; P20k as Moral Damages
[MD], considering Escolangos social standing and professional stature.)
RTC (Balanga, Bataan): AFFIRMED in toto Paders conviction.
CA: AFFIRMED the decision of the RTC, but modified the penalty imposed. (4 mos., 1 day of AM)

ISSUES:
1. Was Pader guilty of slight oral defamation, or of serious oral defamation.

HELD:
1. The defamatory words only amounted to SLIGHT ORAL DEFAMATION.
SEE: DOCTRINE (Factors determining whether defamatory words qualify as slight or serious oral defamation.)
What the MTC considered: that the defamation was deliberately done to destroy Atty. Escolangos reputation
since Pader was a political opponent of Escolango.
Case at bar: there was only slight oral defamation, not serious oral defamation, as found by the lower courts.
o What the MTC failed to appreciate: SEE FACTS, IMPORTANT NOTES
DODOT Slander
 o SC: We do not find it seriously insulting that after a previous incident involving his father, a drunk
Rogelio Pader on seeing Atty. Escolango would utter words expressing anger.
SEE: DOCTRINE (On putang ina mo as an expression of anger.)
Intention: to show feelings of RESENTMENT NOT necessarily to insult.
Being a candidate for vice mayor, occasional gestures and words of disapproval or dislike of his
person are NOT uncommon.
On propriety of the award of MD: improper MTC erred in awarding MD without proof of suffering.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, we resolve to DENY the petition. However, we set aside the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21710 and find petitioner Rogelio Pader guilty only of slight oral defamation. We impose
on him a fine of P200.00 and costs.

DODOT Slander