LAROBIS vs CA

Crim 2 – Slander (Art. 358)

Court Supreme Court

Citation GR No. 104189
Date March 30, 1993
Petitioner Amelia Larobis
Respondents Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines
Ponente Quiason, J.
Relevant Topic Art. 358 Slander – simple slander vs grave slander (what circumstances qualify it as grave)
Prepared by Soriano, Hilary Holly C.

CASE SUMMARY
Amelia Larobis was convicted by RTC Manolo Fortich Bukidnon of the crime of grave oral defamation. She shouted within
hearing distance of several persons, humiliating words unto Hon. Rodrigo F. Lim Jr.Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the RTC decision with modification on the imprisonment due to the incorrect application of the ISL. The Supreme
Court affirmed the CA decision, convicting Larobis guilty of grave oral defamation (Art. 358) but modified the CA decision
due to incorrect application of the ISL.

FACTS
 Armelia Larobis shouted, within hearing distance of several persons, the following words calculated to humiliate and to cast
aspersion on Hon. Rodrigo F. Lim Jr. (61 year old public school teacher)
o “LIMBONGAN, MARO NGA MATUTUDLO, PATAY GUTOM, TIGULANG GIUBAN NA, BOGOK, HUGAWAN,
IPASALBIDS KANAKO NI DODONG AMORA” (You are a cheat, a dishonest teacher, you are dead hungry, an old
person with gray hair, dull, dirty, I will have you salvaged by Dodong Amora)
 2nd Municipal Trial Court of Manolo Fortich-Libo-na Bukidnon found Larobis guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
grave oral defamation (Criminal Case No. 979)
o indeterminate sentence of 4 months and 1 day or arresto mayor max to 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional min
o P1,500 attorney’s fees + P3,500 moral damages + P100 costs
 RTC Manolo Fortich affirmed in toto the MTC decision
 Court of Appeals affirmed RTC decision but modified the penalty
RTC Penalty CA Penalty
4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor max to 1 year and 1 day 3 months of arresto mayor to 1 year and 8 months of prision
of prision correccional min correccional
 Amelia appealed the CA decision, claiming that she was only liable, at the most, for slight oral defamation.

ISSUE/HELD RATIO
W/N Larobis The determination of grave or slight depends not only upon the sense and grammatical meaning
committed of the utterances, but also apon the special circumstances of the case.
grave oral  Social standing – complainant Rodrigo has been a public school teacher for 32 years
defamation  Age – 61 years old
instead of  Larobis disregarded the respect due the age and status of Rodrigo Lim.
slight oral
defamation? – It cannot be reduced to simple oral defamation by the claim that the slanderous words were said in the
YES, grave heat of anger. The slanderous words were uttered with evident intent, to strike deep into the character
oral of the victim.
defamation
W/N the CA RTC erred in imposing the minimum, while CA erred in imposing the maximum.
imposed the  Penalty imposed for grave defamation (Art. 358) is arresto mayor max to prision correccional
correct periods min
based on ISL?  Fixing the minimum – descend one degree lower from arresto mayor max  arresto mayor
– NO med (2 months and 1 day to 4 months) – CA fixed it at 3 months which is within the range
 Fixing the maximum – divide by 3 the no. of days included in the penalty prescribed by law
because the prescribed penalty is composed of only 2 periods (Art. 65)
o Minimum – 4 months and 1 day to 1 year
o Medium – 1 year and 1 day to 1 year and 8 months
o Maximum – 1 year, 8 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
o Maximum term should be within 1 year and 1 day to 1 year and 8 months
(medium) since there are no mitigating and aggravating circumstances

RULING
CA decision affirmed with modification on the penalty. Indeterminate penalty must be from 3 months of arresto mayor to 1
year and 1 day of prision correccional.