Legal Res - de Leon vs. RP & Leonardo

ERMELINE J.
TAMPUS – 2JD – 5YR Program
LEGAL RESEARCH
CASE BRIEF:
De Leon vs. People of the Philippines and SPO3 Pedrito L. Leonardo

G.R. No. 212623, January 11, 2016
Facts:
The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: private respondent SPO3 Pedrito L.
Leonardo, Carlito Principe, and Jennifer Malupeng. Their combined testimonies narrated that Enrique De
Leon and his son, John Christopher De Leon, filed a complaint for Grave Misconduct against SPO3
Leonardo before the People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB).
The first hearing on April 17, 2006, at around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, while waiting outside
the PLEB office, Manila City Hall, SPO3 Pedrito L. Leonardo noticed De Leon and several of his
companions approaching. Before entering the PLEB office, Enrique de Leon, with deliberate intent to
besmirch the honor and reputation of SPO3 Leonardo, did and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously
publicly proffer against the SPO3 Leonardo scandalous words and expressions such as: “WALANGHIYA
KANG MANGONGOTONG NA PULIS, ANG YABANG-YABANG MO NOON. PATAY KA MAMAYA SA
AKIN,” and other words and expression of similar import, thereby bringing the SPO3 Pedrito L. Leonardo
into public contempt, discredit and ridicule.
Allegedly, he could have arrested De Leon but he did not want to make a scene. However, De
Leon's wife, Concepcion, emerged from the said office and apologized to SPO3 Leonardo for her
husband's actuations. SPO3 Leonardo calmly proceeded to the Special Operations Group of the
Philippine National Police located at the Manila City Hall to have the incident entered in its blotter. On
the same day, SPO3 Leonardo filed his complaint at the Office of the City Prosecutor together with
Principe.
On April 15, 2011, the MeTC found De Leon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Grave Oral
Defamation. The trial court considered SPO3 Leonardo’s police blotter as prima facie evidence of facts
contained therein. On September 28, 2012, RTC rendered its decision affirming MeTC ruling in toto. The
CA affirmed the RTC decision with modification as to the imposed penalty.
Issues:
What constitutes oral defamation?
Ruling:
The crime committed is only Slight Oral Defamation.
Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. It is
defined as “the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his
reputation, office trade, business or means of livelihood. The elements of oral defamation are:
(1) there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, status or circumstances;
(2) made orally;
(3) publicly;
(4) and maliciously;
(5) directed to a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead;
(6) which tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed.
Oral defamation may either be simple or grave. It becomes grave when it is of a serious and
insulting nature.
To determine whether a statement is defamatory, the words used in the statement must be
construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they
would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and
understood in another sense. It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not
actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured,
or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the
absence of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does
not make it actionable by itself.
In this case, the Court agrees that the words uttered by De Leon were defamatory in nature. It
is, however, of the view that the same only constituted simple oral defamation.
Also, the Court finds that even though SPO3 Leonardo was a Police Officer by profession, his
complaint against De Leon for Oral defamation must still proper. It has been held that a public officer
should not be too onion-skinned and should be tolerant of criticism. The doctrine nevertheless, would
only apply if the defamatory statement was uttered in connection with the public officer’s duty.
In sum, Enrique De Leon is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Slight Oral
Defamation.
Petition is partially granted.

Legal Res - de Leon vs. RP & Leonardo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Res - de Leon vs. RP & Leonardo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Res - de Leon vs. RP & Leonardo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ERMELINE J.

TAMPUS – 2JD – 5YR Program

De Leon vs. People of the Philippines and SPO3 Pedrito L. Leonardo

Petition is partially granted.

You might also like