Resolution Fiscal - Kent

Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of Vigan
LOVELY ANNE JOY C. LAZO

MIRELA A. VERZOSA
Complainants,
Criminal Case No. ___________

-versus- For: Slander (Oral Defamation)
Under Article 358 of the
Revised Penal Code
ARYAN MANGLAPUS, RAQUEL BASABAS, and

JOHANNA VILORIA
Respondents,
x---------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
The respondents ARYAN MANGLAPUS, RAQUEL BASABAS, and JOHANNA

VILORIA were charged of the crime of Oral Defamation in a complaint filed by
LOVELY ANNE JOY C. LAZO and MIRELA A. VERZOSA.
In support of their complaint, the herein complainants attached the following

documents:
1. Sworn Statement of Mr. Santiago Reolalas, and;

2. Police Blotter by SPO3 Purificacion Pilar Pandoro
Statement of Facts
Based on the complaint together with the sworn statement submitted, the
following facts were established:
That on January 30, 2019, at about 10:00 a.m., the complainants were busy
shopping at Guess, Vigan City, when complainant Mirela Verzosa saw
respondents, their college classmates, pass by, and the latter are eyeing
complainant Lovely Anne Joy C. Lazo. When complainants exited the store, they
were surprised when respondent Aryan Cesar Manglapus shouted “Pokpok ka nga
babai, Lovely! Ta la agputputa ti ammom pati diay boyfriend ko inagaw mo puta!
Nagado la garod nga lalaki mon di ka palang marnek! Deta gayyem mo
napasurot mo payen nga agputa nya? My God! Bitchy!” Thereafter, the two other
respondents Raquel Basabas and Johanna Viloria started uttering offensive
remarks. Basabas shouted, “Ay wen! Agpadpada da nga aggayyem puputa da!”
and Viloria said, “Talaga ah kinabit pay deta nga Lovely tay lolong ko! Yuck!”
The acts of respondents provoked complainant Lazo to slap respondent Aryan
Manglapus on the face. The latter continuously uttered defamatory words despite
being slapped. When complainant Lazo was about to slap the other respondents,
SPO3 Purificacion Pilar Pandoro intervened and upon seeing her, the respondents
immediately ran.
Page 1 of 4
That the respondents’ remarks saying that: 1) complainant Lazo took away
respondent Manglapus’ boyfriend, and that the former has illicit sexual
relationships with several men, and; 2) complainant Verzosa is a whore, added
insult and injury to complainants’ name and reputation.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
In a sworn statement by Mr. Santiago Reolalas, he stated therein that the parties
are his students, and that he personally saw the respondents orally defame the
complainants. He stated that he heard respondent Manglapus utter the words “Pokpok ka
nga babai, Lovely! Ta la agputputa ti ammom pati diay boyfriend ko inagaw mo puta!
Nagado la garod nga lalaki mon di ka palang marnek! Deta gayyem mo napasurot mo
payen nga agputa nya? My God! Bitchy!” to complainant Lovely Lazo. It was seconded
by respondent Basabas when she said “Ay wen! Agpadpada da nga aggayyem puputa
da!,” and by respondent Viloria when she also said “Talaga ah kinabit pay deta nga
Lovely tay lolong ko! Yuck!” Complainant Lazo slapped respondent Manglapus due to
humiliation. When a police officer appeared, the respondents hurriedly ran away.
In the Police Report filed by SPO3 Purificacion Pilar Pandoro, she stated that
initial investigation disclosed that the parties had an altercation wherein “Pokpok ka nga
babai, Lovely! Ta la agputputa ti ammom pati diay boyfriend ko inagaw mo puta!
Nagado la garod nga lalaki mon di ka palang marnek! Deta gayyem mo napasurot mo
payen nga agputa nya? My God! Bitchy!” to complainant Lazo. Thereafter, the two other
respondents Basabas and Viloria started uttering offensive remarks. Basabas shouted,
“Ay wen! Agpadpada da nga aggayyem puputa da!” and Viloria said, “Talaga ah
kinabit pay deta nga Lovely tay lolong ko! Yuck!” The acts of respondents provoked
complainant Lazo to slap respondent Manglapus on the face. The latter continuously
uttered defamatory words despite being slapped. The respondents ran away after seeing
the police.
In their counter-affidavit, the respondents denied the allegations of the complaint,

saying that they were not eyeing complainant Lazo, but were merely having a usual “guy
sight-seeing” in Plaza Maestro Vigan City. They stated that they did not utter offensive
remarks to complainant Lazo. They were with their friend Chrisma Nelvis at the time of
the incident. They were surprised when complainant Lazo ran swiftly towards them and
forcefully grabbed respondent Manglapus’ hair and shoulders until the latter fell in the
concrete pavement. After falling, complainant Lazo continued to grab respondent
Manglapus’ hair and started say screaming, “Hoy! Aryan nga agin e-emma ka paylang!
Nakitak mismo diay cellphone message ni boyfriend ko nga saysayetem isuna! Gayam,
nakarkaro gayam ti kinapokpok, linaputam ken kinagatel mo kanyak! Hanko expektaren
nga pati toy boyfriend ko sulutem! Usto talaga diay kunkunada nga nasa loob ang kulo
ng mga tahimik!” Complainant Lazo also clawed respondent Manglapus’ neck and chest.
Respondents Basabas and Viloria tried to stop complainant Lazo from her violent acts,
however, complainant Verzosa likewise grabbed respondents’ Basabas and Viloria’s hair
to remove them from the incident, while she shouted, “Hoy! Dwa kayo nga puputa haan
yo pagtinnulungan ni sisterets ko! Pudno met a nalaslasbang suna ngem deta gayyem yo
nga ni Aryan!” While the commotion was ongoing, the alarmed public went to Plaza
Maestro Security Office (PMSO) to report the same. While complainants evaded the
security officers, they endlessly yelled, “Addanto aldaw yo kaniami nga tallo a lalaad!
Lalaad! Sasayet! Puputa!” Respondents claim that complainants’ remarks injured their
name and reputation.
Page 2 of 4
In the affidavit of witness Chrisma Nelvis for the respondents, she stated that she,
together with the respondents, were having a good day at Plaza Maestro, Vigan City,
when complainant Lazo suddenly came and physically and verbally harassed respondent
Manglapus. Complainant Verzosa did the same to respondents Basabas and Viloria when
the latter tried to stop complainant Lazo. Nelvis further stated that she tried to stop them
but she was not able to, until such time that the security officers arrived. She put forth
that respondents were humiliated and embarrassed because of the acts of the
complainants.
Analyses/Findings and Recommendations
Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code specifically states as follows:
“Art 353. Definition of libel. – A libel is a public and malicious imputation

of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonour,
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.”
Art. 358 of the same Code, as a form of libel likewise provides:
“Art. 358. Slander. – Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor

in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is
of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise, the penalty shall be arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
In the case of Caal vs. People, G.R. No. 163181, October 19, 2005, petitioner said
that complainant Daylinda is a thief and that the latter’s witnesses are all nincompoops.
The MCTC found the accused guilty of grave oral defamation, and this was affirmed by
the RTC. The Supreme Court held in this case that every defamatory imputation is
presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive
for making it is shown. Malice may be inferred from the style and tone. Indeed, calling
Daylinda a thief is defamation against her character and reputation sufficient to cause her
embarrassment and humiliation.
In the landmark case of People vs. Sario, GR. Nos. L-20754 and L-20759, June
30, 1966, Sario called complainant Ester a “mangkukulam” who has allegedly practiced
witchcraft on Sario’s daughter, and “aswang” which is and injurious and evil character
believed to be capable of assuming various and different forms. The SC said that such
terms are malicious.
As to a catena of slander cases decided by the SC, the Court ruled that the
intention of the speaker is immaterial in slander. What is relevant is how the same is
construed by ordinary people. Moreover, proof of truth is not admissible if the imputation
pertains to an act or omission not constituting a crime, except when it relates to acts of
government employees with respect to their duties. Slander is a serious matter since one
can be imprisoned if convicted.
As in this case, the complaint sufficiently narrated the circumstances which

transpired on that day, along with the injurious imputations made by the respondents
against the complainants. The words uttered by the respondents in public such as
Page 3 of 4
“pokpok,” “puta,” “kabit,” among others, are unsavoury, malicious, and have definitely
caused dishonour to the complainants, more so that they were in a public place with their
teacher even watching them. The sworn statement of Mr. Reolalas, the parties’ teacher,
reinforced the allegations in the complaint, having personally witnessed the altercation.
The Police Report by SPO3 Pandoro based from initial investigations also disclosed the
verbal attacks made by the respondents against the complainants.
On the other hand, the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents are self-serving,
groundless, and contrary to human experience. They merely denied having uttered
offensive remarks against complainants, and instead countered that complainant Lazo ran
towards them without any reason, and grabbed respondent Manglapus hair and shoulders
until the latter fell in the concrete pavement. The respondents offered no evidence on the
alleged fall of respondent Manglapus. No report of injuries or scratches were presented.
They merely alleged the imputation of malicious words by the complainants against them
without strong evidence of testimonies from the witnesses.
The affidavit of witness Nelvis is also definitely weak for having stated
generalizations and no particular details of the attack made by the complainants upon the
respondents. The general details cannot be given weight. Nelvis alleged physical and
verbal harassments without setting forth the acts committed by the complainants.
Moreover, Nelvis could not have known the feelings of the respondents as she was not
the one being attacked. Nelvis’ affidavit is also self-serving, baseless, worthless, and has
no substance at all.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

recommended that an Information for the crime of Slander (Oral Defamation) be filed
against the respondents ARYAN MANGLAPUS, RAQUEL BASABAS, and JOHANNA
VILORIA.
Vigan City, Ilocos Sur.
KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN

Assistant City Prosecutor
APPROVED BY:
LENDL DON-DON R. PLANA

Chief City Prosecutor
Page 4 of 4

Resolution Fiscal - Kent

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

Resolution Fiscal - Kent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

LOVELY ANNE JOY C. LAZO

Criminal Case No. ___________

ARYAN MANGLAPUS, RAQUEL BASABAS, and

The respondents ARYAN MANGLAPUS, RAQUEL BASABAS, and JOHANNA

In support of their complaint, the herein complainants attached the following

1. Sworn Statement of Mr. Santiago Reolalas, and;

In their counter-affidavit, the respondents denied the allegations of the complaint,

Analyses/Findings and Recommendations

Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code specifically states as follows:

“Art 353. Definition of libel. – A libel is a public and malicious imputation

Art. 358 of the same Code, as a form of libel likewise provides:

“Art. 358. Slander. – Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor

As in this case, the complaint sufficiently narrated the circumstances which

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

Vigan City, Ilocos Sur.

KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN

LENDL DON-DON R. PLANA

You might also like