Republic of the Philippines

Second Judicial Region

3rd MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
Tumauini-Delfin Albano
(Tumauini, Isabela)

THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILLIPPINES,
Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIM CASE NO. 3478

For: Slander

CARMEN PASCUA and

GEMALOU PASCUA,
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

COMMENT
(To The Motion For Reconsideration)

Private Complainant, duly assisted by the undersigned counsel,

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this COMMENT
to the Motion For Reconsideration filed by the Accused in the above-
entitled case, and avers:

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

On 8 May 2018, the Honorable Court rendered a Decision in the

above entitled case and the dispositive portion of it is stated in this
manner:

“WHEREFORE, above discussions

considered and the prosecution having
established the GUILT of herein accused
Carmen Pascua and Gemalou Pascua for the
crime of Simple Slander as defined and
penalized under the second paragraph of Article
358 of the Revised Penal Code, judgment is
hereby rendered imposing the penalty of Fine in
the amount of Two Hundred (Php 200.00) Pesos
each considering that this is their first
infraction.”
 To pay jointly and severally herein
private complainant Ines C. Guzman the
amount of :

1. Php 25,000.00 as Moral Damages;

and

2. Php 25,000.00 as Attorney’s Fee.

No pronouncement as to other costs.

SO ORDERED.”

On 24 May 2018, the Public Attorney’s Office, Cabagan District

Office, Cabagan Isabela filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the
abovementioned Decision issued by the Honorable Court. The copy of
the said Motion for Reconsideration was received by our office, hence,
this Comment.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The Decision rendered by the

Honorable Court in awarding Moral
Damages and Attorney’s Fees were
proper and reasonable.

In the Motion for Reconsideration filed before this Honorable

Court, under paragraph 4 thereof, it states that “the Court must rely on
the following elements in awarding moral damages, to wit: “two
elements are required for recovery of moral damages – first, the act or
omission must be the proximate result of the physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury, and second,
the act must be wrongful.”

The two elements for recovery of moral damages stated by the

defense counsel are exactly within the context of the Decision rendered
by the Honorable Court. First, proximate cause is defined as that cause,
which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred. And more comprehensively, the proximate
legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a
natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal
2
connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the
cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person
responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and
intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of
his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result
therefrom.[1]

In this instant case, following the above stated paragraph will

readily show that the act committed by both accused against the private
complainant are the proximate result of the physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury she
sustained. To bolster the contention that the award of Damages and
Attorney’s Fees by the Honorable Court was proper, the testimony of
the private complainant during the conduct of her direct examination
will clearly disclosed that the unlawful act made by the accused was the
proximate result hereof and stated as follows:

(TSN pages 11 and 12 date 24 July 2017)

“Question-

Madam witness will you please tell us

after the utterances was made to you in which
the both accused stated ““Kaad adu nga utang
yu, awan babain yu haan kayo pay
nakabaybayad, ibaga yu nga nakabayad kayun,
nagdakkel pay utang yu kanyak, agsasango tayo
ken Mayor” and, “Bastos ka, awan babain mu.
Dua kilos laeng ti karne ti dawdawaten ni inang
ko nga pinaka persento ti utang yu, Di yu lang
maited. Paragus” what did you mean?

Answer –

Atty, since it was December 31 there were

so many people buying and I felt embarrassed
and because there are so many people they left
and felt embarrassed sir.

1
Dumayag v. People, G.R. No. 172778, 26 November 2012, 686 SCRA 347, 359, citing Vallacar
Transit v. Catubig, G.R. No. 175512, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 281, 295-296

3
 Question –

If you will be given by this Honorable

Court the opportunity to quantify what you felt
Madam witness, how much will that be?

Answer –

They will pay me Php 100,000 for that sir.”

In Kierulf v. CA,[2] we observed that this Court cannot remind the

bench and the bar often enough that in order that moral damages may
be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering,
mental anguish, fright and the like. Citing Francisco v. GSIS,[3] the Court
held that there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms
of mental suffering. Thus, if the plaintiff fails to take the witness stand
and testify as to his social humiliation, wounded feelings and anxiety,
moral damages cannot be awarded;

The second element required in order that moral damages should

be awarded is that the act must be wrongful. It is worthy to note that the
defense counsel stated in the Motion for Reconsideration under
paragraph 2 thereof that they are not disputing the findings of the court
with regard to the conviction of the accused for Slight Oral Defamation,
it only shows that the act committed by both accused was wrong in the
first place. In the Decision rendered by the Honorable Court, it
provides:

“From the definition and parameters laid

down by law and jurisprudence, it is clear that
“Kaad adu nga utang yu, awan babain yu haan
kayo pay nakabaybayad, ibaga yu nga
nakabayad kayun, nagdakkel pay utang yu
kanyak, agsasango tayo ken Mayor” and,
“Bastos ka, awan babain mu. Dua kilos laeng ti
karne ti dawdawaten ni inang ko nga pinaka
persento ti utang yu, Di yu lang maited. Paragus”
which were uttered by Carmen Pascua and
Gemalou Pascua, respectively are slanderous and
defamatory in nature[4].”

2
G.R. No. 160110 , June 18, 2014
3
117 Phil. 586, 597 (1963).
4
Decision of the Honorable Court- MCTC Tumauini, Isabela

4
 With respect to the award of Attorney’s Fees, although attorneys
fees are not allowed in the absence of stipulation, the court can award
the same when the defendants act or omission has compelled the
plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest or where the defendant
acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's
plainly valid, just, and demandable claim.[5]

Still, the award of attorney’s fees to the winning party lies within
the discretion of the court, taking into account the circumstances of each
case. This means that such an award should have factual, legal, and
equitable basis, not founded on pure speculation and
conjecture. Further, the court should state the reason for the award of
attorney’s fees in the body of the decision. Its unheralded appearance in
the dispositive portion is, as a rule, not allowed.[6] The Honorable Court
is correct in awarding the proper amount of Moral Damages and
Attorney’s fees as stated in its Decision and quote ” Having established
the culpability of herein accused, all that is left for this Court to do is to
assess the damages to be awarded. Considering the words and the
circumstances upon which it was uttered coupled with the
respectability and reputation of the private complainant who is also a
mother to a teacher and policemen, the award of moral damages in the
amount of Php25,000.00 pesos is warranted. As a result of this suit,
private complainant was forced to secure the services of a counsel of her
own choice; thus, the award of attorney’s fee in the amount of Php
25,000.00 is reasonable and just.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most fervently prayed of this Honorable Court

to DENY the Motion For Reconsideration filed by the defense counsel on
the ground that the Decision rendered by the Honorable Court
pertaining to the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees was
proper and reasonable.

Other reliefs that are deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.

Santiago City for Tumauini Isabela, 9 June 2018.

5
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 2208.
6
Pagsibigan v. People, G.R. No. 163868, June 4, 2009, 588 SCRA 249, 258

5
 THE LAW OFFICES OF DAMASEN & SUBIA
As Private Prosecutor
Unit 5, Mango Suites, Calao East, Santiago City
E-mail: lmdlawoffice@gmail.com
Mobile No.: 09178730405
Tel. No.: (078) 305-2392

By:

ATTY. LUCKY M. DAMASEN

MCLE Compliance No. V-008089/06-04-15
PTR No. 2398537/Santiago City/01-03-2018
IBP No. 021276/IBP National Office, Pasig City/01-05-2018
Roll No.37959/07-24-92

Copy furnished:

ATTY.MARICION B. CAPILI-GUINGAB
Public Attorney’s Office
Cabagan District Office
Cabagan, Isabela
/by registered mail

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Copies of this COMMENT were duly served to Atty. Maricion B.

Capili-guingab via registered mail instead of personal service due to
time constraints and lack of personnel to effect personal service.

RYAN JAY P. BAÑEZ