Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

9th Judicial Region
Branch 2
Zamboanga City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 49105

-versusAL RHASID SIRAJI

Accused.
x-----------------------------------x

-forGRAVE SLANDER
(Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code)

DECISION
Accused Al Rhasid Siraji is charged with the crime of Grave Slander by 3rd Assistant City
Prosecutor Melca Quipse of Zamboanga City, committed as follows:

That on or about January 15, 2014, in the City of Zamboanga,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, being then the Security Officer of the Department of Public Works and
Highways R-IX, this city, with the deliberate intent of bringing on
MOHAMMAD ANTAO, who is the Regional Director of the aforesaid
Department, into discredit, disrepute, and contempt, did and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, publicly speak and utter against said MOHAMMAD
ANTAO, the following words and expressions to wit: MARU! KAWATAN!
BOBO! which if translated in English language will mean, SLY! THIEF!
STUPID!, and other words of similar import and as a result, said defamatory
utterance and expressions caused mental anguish, serious anxiety, social
humiliation and besmirched reputation to his damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW,
On Feb 15, 2014, the above-named accused was arraigned and duly assisted by
counsel entered a plea of not guilty to the offense as charged.

I CANT SEE PHOTO HERE DUNNO WHAT TO TYPE

Page 2 of 7
X - - - - - - - - - - /

After the terminaton of the preliminary conference, trial on the

merits ensued.
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely:
private complainant Mohammad Antao, Normilyn Miralpes, and
Maida Ismael.
Culled from the evidence of the prosecution shows that private
complainant Mohammad Antao is the duly-appointed Regional
Director of the Department of Public Works and Highways Regional
Office IX, Tetuan, Zamboanga City.
On January 15, 2014, at around 9:00 oclock in the morning, he
was at his office doing his business and was checking the performance
of the accused and reminded him that poor performance would
inevitably lead to termination of employment.
Then, herein accused Al Rhasid Siraji went back to his office at
around 10:30 am., and started maligning me and uttered slanderous,
malicious, and defamatory words against my person in this wise:
MARU! KAWATAN! BOBO! in front of his people.
The utterances where heard by Normilyn Miralpes, Maida
Ismael and other employees.
He felt humiliated, belittled and with much anxiety.

Page 3 of 7
X - - - - - - - - - - /

So, he decided to leave his office and went to the prosecutors office
for appropriate actions.
On cross-examination, he testified that he was reminding said
accused of poor performance which would lead to the termination of the
employment of the accused.
The accused then shouted at him the following words, to wit:

MARU! KAWATAN! BOBO! in front of his people.

He shouted said words in the presence of his constituents,
Normilyn Miralpes, Maida Ismael and other employees.
The testimony of private complainant Mohammad Antao was
corroborated by his witness Normilyn Miralpes.
Witness Normilyn Miralpes testified among others, that on
January 15, 2014 at around 10:30 am in the morning, she was in the
office of private complainant and was talking to him when the Security
Officer Al-Rashid Siraji barged into the office without any warning
and verbally assaulted Dir. Antao in my presence, with the words
MARU! KAWATAN! BOBO!.
Then, the Director evaded the discussion and left his office.
There are more or less ten (10) people present at that time.
Even after the said Director left, the above-named accused
continued uttering bad words.
Witness Maida Ismael was in the said office of private
complainant on January 15, 2014 at about 10:00 oclock in the
morning. She was there for her usual work as a secretary.
She testified that when accused Al-Rashid Siraji went to the
office of director Mohammad Antao at about 10:30 am of January 15,
2014 and without any warning he used foul languages against Director
Antao in this wise MARU! KAWATAN! BOBO! and that witness
was shocked that the Security Guard Al-Rhasid Siraji lost all due
respect and regard to our Regional Director.

Page 4 of 7
X - - - - - - - - - - /

In view of the complaint he received, PO3 Alvir Carabot

prepared a Case Report dated January 15, 2014 marked as Exhibits
C and C-1 for the prosecution and he forwarded the case to the
City prosecutors Office on June 11,2009 as shown in the Forwarding
Report dated on January 15, 2014.
Based on the Case Report prepared by PO3 Alvir Carabot
shows that he did not personally interview and take the statements of
witnesses because the private complainant who appeared during the
scheduled confrontation brought with him his prepared affidavit and
his witnesses and were subscribed before State Prosecutor II, January
15, 2014.
During the scheduled confrontation, the above named accused
did not appear before his office because he allegedly had important
matters to attend to.
The Defense presented three (3) witnesses, the accused himself, Sarah
Alijuddin, Alvir Carabot.
The accused testified that he was indeed inside the office of private
complainant but denied that the words he uttered where against said
complainant more so, slanderous in nature. Accused alleges that he was joking
with his friend (Alvir Carabot) in the hall way after he was reminded by private
complainant about his sloppy performance at exactly 10:30 am in the morning
of January 15, 2014.
Witness Sarah Alijuddin a resource staff of the DPWH and who
personally knew the accused testified among others that she saw the accused
joking around with his friend (Alvir Carabot) by calling him MARU!
KAWATAN! BOBO! (SLY! THIEF! STUPID!) In a mischievous manner since
they were having their usual conversation with one another. She also testified
that she saw the Regional Director few meters away from the accused.

Witness Alvir Carabot testified that he saw the accused having a

conversation with his boss inside the office. After the accused left the office, the
accused saw Alvir waiting for him in the hallway and he (Accused) started
calling him (Alvir Carabot) MARU! KAWATAN! BOBO! (SLY! THIEF!
STUPID!) in a joking manner.

Page 5 of 7
X - - - - - - - - - - /
The only issue here is whether or not the above-named accused is guilty
as charged in the complaint and is liable for damages.

Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code provides the following to wit:

Art. 358. Slander: - Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto

mayor in its maximum period to prision correctional 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 oral defamation, the accused to be exonerated should show that

slanderous words uttered by him are true and made with good intentions. (Royo
vs. C.A., 53 O.G. 6618).
There is no doubt to the mind of this court that accused Al-Rhasid Siraji
uttered the following slanderous words against private complainant Mohammad
Antao to wit: MARU! KAWATAN! BOBO! (SLY! THIEF! STUPID!) in
front of his people in Tetuan, Zamboanga City

The testimonies of prosecution witnesses clearly established that

accused uttered the above-stated slanderous words against the private
complainant. The time and date of the uttering of the slanderous words where all
consistent wherein all of the prosecution witnesses pointed out that it happened
exactly on about 10:30 am inside the office of Director Mohammad Antao.
Consequently, the Defense witnesses failed to pin point exactly when
accused Al-Rhasid Siraji started calling his friend Alvir Carabot names in a
joking manner. Their testimonies to when exactly accused started joking with
his friend is vague. The accused may have started calling Alvir Carabot names
before entering the office of private complainant which is exactly at 10:00
oclock in the morning or earlier near the office of private complainant
Mohammad Antao and upon reaching 10:30 am said accused entered the office
then started uttering the same words this time against the private complainant
himself constituting the offense or the accused entered the office of Mohammad
Antao and uttered slanderous words against him and left the office then stating
the same slanderous words but this time addressed to his friend Alvir Carabot in
a joking manner or the accused really did not utter said slanderous words against
private complainant after visiting his office, which events may be correct in the
minds of the defense witnesses, the correct event is already made certain by the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

Page 6 of 7
X - - - - - - - - - - /

The elements of defamation consist of imputation of a crime, or of a

vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or circumstance.
Branding someone as a thief or a dull person is obviously slanderous for they
are malicious imputations of a criminal act
That the imputation must be made publicly. The slanderous words
where uttered right in front of the employees of the private complainant
That it must be malicious. The branding of someone as a thief, a dull
person is automatically considered malicious by law.
That the imputation must be directed to a natural or juridical person, or
one who is dead.
That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt of the person defamed.
All of these elements are present and that the accused uttered the
slanderous words out of anger against the private complainant due to the fact
that the latter reminded him about his poor performance with his tasks.
It must be noted that in defamation cases, in order to rebut malice it
must be shown by the accused that:
The defamatory words imputed are true, in case of law allows proof of
the truth of the imputation;
It is published with good intentions and that there is justifiable motive
for making it.
Furthermore Malice is not presumed if it was made in a private
communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal,
moral or social duty which are all excusable.
Another exemption is if a fair and true report, made in good faith,
without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or
other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature,
or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in
the exercise of their functions such as immunities granted to
members of the senate.

The action of the accused not falling within the following

exemption must be a clear indication of his inevitable future.

Page 7 of 7
X - - - - - - - - - - /

In this case, the vague testimonies of the defense

witnesses cannot prevail over the accurate testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. The testimonies of the defense
witnesses are nothing but excuses without any accuracy in an
attempt to save the said accused from his faith.
Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every
person criminally liable for a felony is civilly liable. In the instant
case, the private complainant should be awarded moral
damages for the humiliation he suffered because of the abovestated slanderous words uttered by the above-named accused.
The amount of Two Thousand (2,000.00) Pesos is awarded to
the private complainant as moral damages which this court
deemed it to be just and equitable under the premises.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court, finding

accused Al-Rhasid Siraji guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Grave Slander penalized under Article 358 of the
Revised Penal Code, and pursuant thereto, herby sentences him
to suffer and inderterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging
from FOUR (4) MONTHS OF ARRESTO MAYOR, as minimum
to ONE (1) YEAR and EIGHT (8) MONTHS OF PRISION
CORRECCIONAL, as maximum, and to pay the offended party
Mohammad Antao Two Thousand (2,000.00) Pesos, as moral
damages.