Cañal v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Bonifacio L. Cañal, Sr. was charged with Grave Oral Defamation for allegedly uttering insulting words against Daylinda P. Cañal in front of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Hinatuan-Tagbina, Surigao del Sur. The Information alleged that on July 25, 1996, Bonifacio publicly spoke and uttered defamatory words against Daylinda, imputing to her that she "live[s] from stealing" and is a "long time thief," causing her mental anguish, serious anxiety, social humiliation, and besmirched reputation. Procedural History: Bonifacio pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented two witnesses, Daylinda and Emelinda A. Kimilat, who testified to the defamatory utterances. After the prosecution rested, Bonifacio's counsel manifested intent to file a demurrer to evidence, but none was filed. The defense was granted several postponements to present evidence, but on January 29, 1999, Bonifacio's counsel was again absent. The prosecution moved to submit the case for decision, which the MCTC granted over Bonifacio's objection. The MCTC found Bonifacio guilty of Grave Oral Defamation and sentenced him to imprisonment and damages. Bonifacio appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MCTC decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) also affirmed the RTC's ruling. Bonifacio's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Bonifacio filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging he was deprived of due process and his right to adduce evidence due to his counsel's repeated absences. He argued that he should not suffer for his counsel's failings and that the appellate court failed to appreciate the true facts.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner was deprived of due process and his right to present evidence. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Grave Oral Defamation. Whether the penalty imposed and the damages awarded were proper.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification regarding the penalty and damages. Petitioner Bonifacio L. Cañal, Sr. was sentenced to a straight penalty of six (6) months of imprisonment and ordered to pay Daylinda P. Cañal ₱5,000.00 as moral damages. The award of compensatory damages was deleted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process and the right to present evidence: The Court held that the petitioner was afforded due process as he was heard in a court of competent jurisdiction and proceeded against under orderly processes of law. He was given several opportunities to present his evidence on November 12, 1998, December 4, 1998, and January 29, 1999. The failure of his counsel or witness to appear on these scheduled hearings, despite due notice, constituted a waiver of his right to adduce evidence. The Court reiterated the rule that a client is bound by the negligence or failings of his counsel, and that the client cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had counsel proceeded differently. The petitioner's attempt to shift the blame to his counsel was deemed futile, as he failed to make out a case of excusable negligence and could have dispensed with the services of his counsel. On the issue of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Emelinda A. Kimilat, an eyewitness, positively identified the petitioner and testified that he called Daylinda a "thief" and stated she had "been living ever since of stealing." The Court found that imputing to Daylinda that she is a "thief" is irrefragably grave oral defamation, as it imputes to her a crime that is dishonorable or contemptuous. On the issue of penalty and damages: The Court found the penalty imposed by the lower courts to be erroneous. Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code provides for arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period for grave oral defamation. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty should be reduced by one degree. The Court noted that the trial court's premise for imposing a higher penalty, based on a previous conviction for which probation was filed, was not supported by evidence in the records. Therefore, the petitioner should be sentenced to a straight penalty of six (6) months. The award of ₱2,000.00 as compensatory damages was deleted for lack of factual basis, as there was no competent proof of the actual amount thereof. However, the award of moral damages was affirmed, as Article 2219(7) of the New Civil Code allows recovery of moral damages in cases of slander or defamation, and Daylinda testified to the shame and humiliation she suffered.
Main Doctrine
A client is bound by the negligence or failings of his counsel, and the failure to present evidence due to counsel's absence, despite due notice and several postponements, constitutes a waiver of the right to present evidence, barring a claim of denial of due process. The penalty for grave oral defamation must be determined in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and compensatory damages require competent proof of actual amount.