People v. Sario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Six informations for oral defamation were filed against Carmen Sario, Dulce Sario, Asuncion Requiron, and Francisco Sario. The accused were alleged to have called the complainant, Ester Peña, a "mangkukulam" (witch) and accused her of practicing witchcraft, including attributing the death of three persons to her alleged practice. Procedural History: Before arraignment, the accused filed a joint motion to quash the informations, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense punishable by law. The trial court granted this motion. The Petition: The prosecution appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals, which then certified the cases to the Supreme Court, raising the sole issue of whether the informations alleged facts constituting a punishable offense.
Issue(s)
Whether the imputation of being a "mangkukulam" or practicing witchcraft constitutes oral defamation under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the imputation of causing death through witchcraft constitutes oral defamation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal, holding that the informations sufficiently alleged facts constituting the crime of oral defamation. The cases were remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the imputation of being a "mangkukulam" or practicing witchcraft constitutes oral defamation: The Court held that the term "mangkukulam" is an epithet of opprobrium, equivalent to "witch" or "sorceress." To call someone a witch is to impute a vice, condition, or status that is dishonorable and contemptible, as it accuses the person of employing the black art and trafficking with evil spirits. Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as the public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary, tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. The Court rejected the lower court's reasoning that belief in witchcraft is obsolete, stating that the imputed vice or defect need not be real; an imaginary one is sufficient. Furthermore, even if belief in witches has waned, the terms "mangkukulam" and "witch" retain their accepted meanings as terms of derision and objects of contempt. On the issue of whether the imputation of causing death through witchcraft constitutes oral defamation: The Court found that in one of the informations (G.R. No. L-20754), the accused not only called the complainant a "mangkukulam" but also attributed to her the death through witchcraft of three persons. This constitutes an imputation of a crime, which is clearly within the purview of oral defamation as defined by Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court also noted that the imputation of being an "aswang" (an injurious and evil character) is likewise offensive and malicious.
Main Doctrine
The imputation of being a 'mangkukulam' (witch) or practicing witchcraft constitutes oral defamation under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, as it imputes a vice or defect tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt, regardless of whether belief in witchcraft is prevalent in modern times. The imputation of a crime, such as causing death through witchcraft, is also considered defamation.