Resolution Fiscal - Kent
Resolution Fiscal - Kent
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of Vigan
RESOLUTION
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.
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.
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.
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.
APPROVED BY:
Page 4 of 4