REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 47, Pasay City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Criminal Cases No. M-PSY- 06-253 - CFM
-versus- For: Grave Oral Defamation

CHON NAM HYUN AND ELVIRA CHO,

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

DECISION

Courts are required to put the prosecution evidence through the crucible of a
severe testing, and the constitutional right to presumption of innocence requires them
to take a more than casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt favoring the
innocence of the accused.1

THE CHARGE

Both Accused stand charged with Grave Oral Defamation, the accusatory
portion of the Information reads as follows:

That on the 13th day of March 2005, in Pasay City, Metro- Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with deliberate intent of attacking the honesty,
virtue and reputation of Lee Seul Yi, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously utter and proffer the following malicious and defamatory
statements in public to wit:

Putang ina mo! Aalis na kayo, di pa kayo nagbabayad! Estafadora

kang putang ina ka!

Pamilya kayo ng mga estafador, mga putang ina inyo! Hindi na

dapat kayo binubuhay!

which words and expressions had for its object or purpose nothing
else but to cast aspersions and dishonour against the said Lee Seul Yi
thereby exposing him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

Contrary to law.

1
People vs. Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007.

1
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On April 26, 2006, during the arraignment, the accused, duly assisted by Atty.
Mercedes Margallo pleaded not guilty to the charge of Grave Oral Defamation. The
case was referred to the Philippine Mediation Center. There was unsuccessful mediation
and conciliation between the parties. On March 14, 2007, the pre-trial was terminated.
Forthwith, trial on the merits ensued. On July 20, 2009, the prosecution formally
offered its documentary evidence, and thereafter, it rested its case. On October 22, 2010,
the defense formally offered its evidence. After the defense rested its case, this case
was submitted for decision.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

Testimonial Evidence

The prosecution presented the following witnesses:

CRISPIN OLAVARIO testified that he is the driver of the private complainant

Lee Seul Yi since January 14, 2004.2 He drove his employers Song Yong Ho and
private complainant Lee Seul Yi to NAIA, Pasay City on March 13, 2005. They
arrived there at 8:50 p.m. in the same day. They entered the entrance of the airport.
While they were walking, he saw accused Cho Nam Hyun and Elvira Cho pulled
away and hurt private complainant Lee Seul Yi. Simultaneously , the accused
shouted in Tagalog and Korean languages invectives. He heard them say, PUTANG
INA MO! AALIS NA KAYO EH DI PA KAYO NAKAKABAYAD. ESTAFADORA
KANG PUTANG INA KA! He ran towards the private complainant to pacify the
accused. They stopped attacking private complainant when the policemen of the
airport arrived. They were all brought to airport office for an investigation. At the
said office, the accused shouted insulting words to private complainant.

During the cross-examination, he testified that accused Cho Nam Hyun uttered
the word SEKYA which means in Tagalog as PUTANG INA MO.

LEE SEUL YI testified that she got a call from Korea that her father is sick
with a possibility the latter will pass away, so she has to go to Korea. They arrived at
the Ninoy Aquino International Airport on 8:50 p.m. , March 13, 2005. She was
standing in front of the airport when accused Elvira Cho pulled her hair, pulled her
clothes, tearing them off in front of many people. 3 They shouted bad words in
Tagalong at her which she knew like PUTANG INA MO, LOKO LOKO. Her
husband and brother saw it and they tried to stop the two accused. Policemen
arrived. She refused to go with them because they have to go to Korea. At the place
where they were brought, the accused did not stop talking bad words to them like
they are cheaters and liars.

2
TSN dated May 9, 2007, p.6.
3
TSN dated December 11, 2007, p. 10.

2
 Documentary Evidence

The prosecution formally offered the following documentary evidence

which were admitted by this Court: (1) Complaint- Affidavit Lee Seul Yi marked
as Exhibit A with sub-markings; and (2) Affidavit of witness Crispin Olavario
marked as Exhibit B.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

Testimonial Evidence

The defense presented as its lone witness:

ELVIRA CHO testified that on March 13, 2005, she was in their house. At
9:00 p.m. in the same day, they went to Ninoy Aquino International Airport to see
and talk to private complainant Lee Seul Yi who owes money to her husband co-
accused Cho Nam Hyun. She saw the said private complainant lining up at the
airport.4 She greeted her who was surprised to see her. She did not utter any
unsavoury remarks against her. They were investigated by the police. The blotter
showed that they did not utter any invective against her.

During the cross-examination, she admitted that she did not understand Korean
at the time her husband and private complainant were talking at that time. 5

Stipulation of Facts

The prosecution and the defense stipulated on the testimony of accused Cho Nam
Hyun as well as the testimony of police officer Rodelio Muoz Jr. to wit:

1. That the private complainant Lee Seul Yi cannot speak Tagalog or English;

2. That in the police blotter, there is no statement made by the private complainant
as to the pulling of the hair and pulling of complainants shirt;

3. That there is no statement made that the complainants brother was injured
during the incident in the police blotter;

4. That there is no mention in the police blotter that Elvira Cho uttered defamatory
words against the private complainant;

5. That police officer Rodelio Carlito Muoz was the one who responded in the
commotion on March 13, 2005 at the entrance of the departure area and he
blocked the complainant and her husband and the two accused Cho Nam Hyun
and Elvira Cho and the son Cho Yong Han;
6. And as per the affidavit of police officer Muoz, It was Song Yong Ho, the
husband of the private complainant Lee Seul Yi who uttered defamatory words
against the two accused;

4
TSN dated May 5, 2010, p. 10.
5
TSN dated May 5, 2010, p. 19.

3
 7. That the driver and the brother were not in the incident; and

8. That the son of the private complainant was not also in the incident and there
was no statement as to the carrying of a baby during the incident. 6

Documentary Evidence

The defense formally offered the following documentary evidence which were
admitted by this Court: (1) Counter-affidavit of Cho Nam Hyun and Elvira Cho marked
as Exhibit 1 ; (2) Affidavit of Rodelio Munoz marked as Exhibit 2; (3) Promissory
note marked as Exhibit 3; (4) Statement before CIDG of Cho Nam Hyun marked as
Exhibit 4; (5) Police blotter on March 13, 2005 marked as Exhibit 5; (6) Subpoena
marked as Exhibit 6; (7) Endorsement of complaint to OCP Quezon City marked as
Exhibit 7; (8) Police blotter marked as Exhibit 8; (9) Check issued by Lee Seul Yi
marked as Exhibit 9; and (10) Check issued by Lee Seul Yi marked as Exhibit 10.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused are guilty as charged.

APPLICABLE LAW

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.

RULING

The term oral defamation or slander as now understood, has been defined as the
speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his
reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood. There is grave slander when it
is of a serious and insulting nature. The gravity of the oral defamation depends not only
(1) upon the expressions used, but also (2) on the personal relations of the accused and
the offended party, and (3) the circumstances surrounding the case. Indeed, it is a
doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory words will fall under one or the other,
depending not only upon their sense, grammatical significance, and accepted ordinary
meaning judging them separately, but also upon the special circumstances of the case,
antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender, which might
tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time 7. However, uttering defamatory
words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the part of the offended party
constitutes only a light felony.8

In the case at bar, the allegations in the Information vis--vis the complaint-
affidavit constitute only simple not grave oral defamation. The expression putang ina

6
Order dated September 27, 2010.
7
People vs. Jaring, C.A., 40 O.G. 3683.
8
People vs. De Modesto, 40 O.G., Suppl. 11,128.

4
mo is a common enough utterance in the dialect that is often employed, not really to
slender but rather to express anger or displeasure. 9

The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot
be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. In this case, the
constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused was not overturned by the
prosecutions testimonial and documentary evidence because of the following doubts
which benefited the accused:

First, no two persons can utter simultaneously the same words at the same time
thus the impossibility of the commission of the crime as alleged in the Information
against the accused. One of them can only speak Korean language. Considering the
defamatory words alleged in the Information are in Tagalog language, the charge against
Cho Nam Hyun is dubious. There is no standard by which the weight of conflicting
evidence can be ascertained. We have no test of the truth of human testimony except its
conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience. 10 For testimonial evidence to
be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must
also be credible in itself such that a common experience and observation of mankind
lead to the inference of its probability under the circumstances.11

Second, private complainant Lee Seul Yi did not mention the driver at the scene
of incident on March 13, 2005, to quote her testimony, My husband and brother saw it
and they were trying to stop them and then, they were able to separate me from them
and then two policemen came and approached us but they were not wearing their
uniform and they were telling us to go down, sir. 12 Which is contrary to her complaint-
affidavit that my husband, our driver grabbed me from my aggressors hold while my
brother and the security officer tried to separate the spouses Cho from me. A
vacillating witness, who would change her testimony as a chameleon would vary its
hues13 is unworthy of belief.

Third, the police blotter of the incident by private complainant Lee Seul Yi did
not allege that accused uttered the defamatory words as stated in the Information.
Thus, this charge against accused falls within the category of a mere afterthought
because private complainant did not even report this grave oral defamation to the
airport policemen at that time. An afterthought had no probative value as it would
make a solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous
witnesses.14

Lastly, Rodelio Munoz, an airport police corporal of Manila International Airport

Authority who was assigned at International Passengers Terminal I alleged that he
did not hear a Filipina uttering defamatory words in Filipino language but he heard
Korean nationals and a Filipina shouted words at each other. He heard Korean language
uttered and exchanged by the parties at the airport. When there is nothing to indicate
that a witness was actuated by improper motives, his or her positive declarations on the
witness stand , made under solemn oath, deserve full faith and credence. 15

9
Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 139157, February 8, 2000.
10
Frondarina vs. Malazarte, G.R. No. 148423, December 6, 2006.
11
People vs. Domingcil 419 SCRA 291; Litton Mills Inc. vs. Sales 437 SCRA 488.
12
TSN dated December 11, 2007, p. 11.
13
People vs. Wong et al. , G.R. Nos. L-22130 to L-22132, April 25, 1968.
14
People vs. Alicante, 332 SCRA 440, and People vs. Junio, 237 SCRA 826.
15
People vs. Abes 420 SCRA 259.

5
 All told, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused with moral
certainty. Its evidence falls short of the quantum of proof required for conviction.
Accordingly, the constitutional presumption of the innocence of the accused must be
upheld.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, this Court finds the accused Chon

Nam Hyun and Elvira Cho NOT GUILTY on the ground of reasonable doubt. They
are ACQUITTED of the charge of Grave Oral Defamation.

SO ORDERED.

Pasay City, November 12, 2010.

ELIZA B. YU
Judge

Copy furnished:
ACP John Giselher Imperial
City Prosecutors Office
Hall of Justice, Pasay City

Atty. Mercedes Buhayang - Margallo

Defense Counsel
Block 8, lot 50, Mt. Everest St.,
Panorama Hills Subdivision,
Brgy. Cupang, Antipolo City

Lee Seul Yi
Private Complainant
No. 26-A Kayumangi St., West Triangle Homes, Quezon City

Cho Nam Hyun and Elvira Cho

Accused
539 Calbayog St. Highway Hills,
Mandaluyong City