8/10/2019 13 People v Norma Hernandez

People v Norma Hernandez 

55 OG 8465 | 1959

*Note: no full text available (OG); got this from UP Law for Crammers (http:// 
maroon5partnersandassociates.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/people-v-norma-hernandez-1959/)  

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines 

Defendant-Appellants: Maria Norma Hernandez, Mariano Hernandez (father) & Ramona Martinez
(mother) 

*Justifying circumstance: Art 11, Par 4, RPC - avoidance of greater evil  

FACTS: 

1. Vivencio Lascano, 19 y/o, started courting appellant, Maria Norma Hernandez and after
months of courtship, appellant finally accepted Vivencio. On the same date, she asked him to
bring his parents over her home so that they could talk about their marriage.  

2. When
agreedVivencio
to buy aand his parents
wedding dress, went to her shoes,
2 vestidas, house, P20
they for
brought chickensand
the sponsors andtogoats
repairand
the they
uncle’s roof. 

3. While the celebration was going on, appellant was nowhere to be found. Vivencio and his
parents waited but she never showed up thus causing them great shame and humiliation.  

4. Norma Hernandez averred that Vivencio was really courting her but that she wasn’t really in
love with him. Her parents tried to persuade her to accept the proposal and that she only
accepted it out of obedience to her parents and the uncle’s insistence.  

5. Before Vivencio’s parents came to their home, she already counselled them not to bring the
chickens and that they should not regret whatever may happen later.  

6. Appellant said she felt tortured because she wasn’t honestly in love with Vivencio and so she
decided to leave home as last recourse to prevent the marriage.  

7. Appellant’s parents also corroborated her testimony. 

8. RTC convicted her of serious slander by deed because she purposely and deliberately fled to
prevent celebration of marriage. Thus, she appealed. 

 
ISSUE: WON Norma Hernadez should be convicted on the ground of serious slander by deed
HELD: NO, SC reversed the RTC judgment and acquitted the appellant.  

RATIO: 

Malice, one of the essential requisites of slander hasn’t been proven. There is no malice in the
act of the appellant changing her mind. She was merely exercising her right not to give her
consent to the marriage after mature consideration.  

Furthermore, there were no strained relations existing between the complainant & appellant
before the incident. There always existed good relations between them for they were neighbours
so it cannot be sustained that appellant was motivated by spite or ill-will in deliberately frustrating
the marriage. 

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/13-people-v-norma-hernandez 1/2
8/10/2019 13 People v Norma Hernandez

People v Norma Hernandez 

55 OG 8465 | 1959

 
Appellant has the privilege to reconsider her previous commitment to marry and it would be
utterly inconsistent to convict her for slander by deed simply because she desisted in continuing
with the marriage. If she would be liable then that would be tantamount to compelling her to go
into a marriage without her free consent.  

Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless marriage.

Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11 par.4, RPC)  

Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present; 

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.  

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/13-people-v-norma-hernandez 2/2