It held that the findings of truth of the Court of Appeals supported by substantial proof are conclusive and binding on the parties and usually are not reviewable by this Court, until the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule, nha thau xay dung equivalent to diverse factual findings of the decrease courts, or except the findings are completely grounded on speculations, citing Atillo III vs. The Court took the chance to discuss the errors of the decrease courts in the appliance of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, citing People vs. Barrameda vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 96428, September 2, 1999; People vs. People vs. Cesar, 131 Phil. Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. Rivera vs. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. In due time, petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court. On June 19, 1995, the appellate courtroom dismissed the attraction and affirmed the choice of the trial courtroom. That is an enchantment from a choice of the Court of Appeals convicting the petitioner Quirico Mari for the offense of serious slander by deed and imposing a modified penalty of 1 (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correctional, as maximum.
To these arguments, the Supreme Court, offhand, held that the difficulty raised was factual, which would bar it from reviewing the same in an appeal by way of certiorari, citing Maglaque vs. But «any attack upon the non-public character of the general public officer on matters which are not related to the discharge of their official features may constitute libel», citing exception number two (2) of Article 354 which refers to «any other act carried out by public officers within the exercise of their functions.» The Court held that the petitioner’s article had no reference by any means to the efficiency of personal complainant’s place as a public relations marketing consultant within the Department of Trade and Industry. Aggrieved by the aforequoted article, the personal complainant initiated the mandatory complaint in opposition to the petitioner, and on May 25, 1984, an Information was filed before the trial court docket charging the petitioner with libel. Instead of acknowledging receipt of the memorandum, petitioner confronted complainant and angrily shouted at her: «Putang ina, bullshit, bugo.» He banged a chair in front of complainant and choked her.
In his petition for overview earlier than the Supreme Court, the principal problem posited was whether or not or not the questioned article written by the petitioner is libelous. On June 18, 1996, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for overview. On January 7, 1992, complainant filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur a criminal complaint towards petitioner for slander by deed. However, when he returned the same three days later, complainant observed that several papers have been lacking which included official communications from the Civil Service Commission and Regional Office, Department of Agriculture, and a duplicate of the complaint by the Rural Bank of Digos towards petitioner. Upon instruction of her superior officer, Honorio Lumain, complainant despatched a memorandum to petitioner asking him to elucidate why his 201 file was returned with lacking paperwork. With the intervention of the security guard, petitioner was prevailed upon to desist from further injuring complainant.
The circumstances beneath which the topic article was published by the petitioner buttressed the inference that petitioner was animated solely by revenge in the direction of the non-public complainant on account of the leaflet entitled «Supalpal si Sazon,’ earlier circulated among the homeowners as well because the writings close to the entrance gate of the subdivision, all of which petitioner believed to be the handiwork of the non-public complainant. On December 6, 1991, petitioner borrowed from complainant the records of his 201 file. The Court rejected the arguments of the petitioner (a) that the word «mandurugas» and other phrases and phrases used within the questioned article didn’t impute to private complainant any crime, vice or defect which would be injurious or damaging to his name and repute and (b) that the descriptive words and phrases used should be considered as mere epithets which are a type of «non-actionable opinion», as a result of while they could specific petitioner’s sturdy emotional emotions of dislike, they do not mean to reflect adversely on personal complainant’s repute. Content was generated with .
The petitioner assailed the trial court docket’s finding that petitioner shouted invectives at complainant in the presence of several persons and then choked her. After due proceedings, on December 1, 1995, the Regional Trial Court, Davao del Sur, Digos, rendered decision adopting the trial court’s findings of truth, and affirming the appealed determination in toto. The facts of the case confirmed that complainant Norma Capintoy and petitioner Quirico Mari have been co-staff in the Department of Agriculture, with workplace at Digos, Davao del Sur, though complainant occupied the next place. Furthermore, the phrases used within the questioned article have been mostly uncalled for, strongly sending the message that petitioner’s goal was merely to malign and injure the reputation of the non-public complainant. The Supreme Court discovered the petitioner responsible past cheap doubt of severe slander by deed defined below Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code but instead sentenced him to pay a fantastic of P1,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. This data has been written with !