G.R. No. 160351 - NOEL VILLANUEVA, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND YOLANDA CASTRO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offenses or charges mentioned above, he is hereby sentenced to an imprisonment of FOUR (4) MONTHS and one (1) day to one (1) year in each case which the accused shall served (at the same time), and to pay by way of moral damages the sum of P50,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and litigation expenses and attorneys fees of P30,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per appearance fee. [16] Both parties appealed to the RTC of Tarlac, which affirmed petitioner's conviction, but modified the penalty and the manner of serving accused's sentence, and with a substantial increase in the award of damages. The fallo reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, insofar as it finds the accused guilty of grave oral defamation in Criminal Case No. 139 and slander by deed in Criminal Case No. 140 is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the accused is to be sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from three (3) months as minimum to TWO (2) years and TWO (2) months as maximum in each of the cases, the same to be served SUCCESSIVELY. Likewise, the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court is further modified and the accused is ordered to pay the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages and another amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, including the amount of P30,000.00 as attorney's fees and P1,000.00 per hearing as appearance fee. [17] On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court with the modification that the award of exemplary damages was deleted because according to the Court of Appeals it was shown from the records that the petitioner himself was a victim of complainant's indiscretion for refusing, for no reason at all, to approve petitioner's application for monetization of his accrued leave credits. The Court of Appeals disposed as follows: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the assailed decision is hereby affirmed with the modification that the award of exemplary damages is hereby deleted. [18] As petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise met with failure, petitioner, in a last stab at absolution, lodged the present petition for review on the following arguments: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING ON ONLY ONE (1) ISSUE RAISED BY PETITIONER IN HIS PETITION FOR REVIEW AND IN NOT RULING SQUARELY ON THE OTHER FIVE (5) ISSUES, THUS, DENYING PETITIONER OF HIS RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND TO DUE PROCESS. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT REVERSING THE ASSAILED DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE FACT THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ITSELF, IT IS CLEAR, IT BEING SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THAT IT WAS THE COMPLAINANT WHO GAVE THE PROVOCATION TO THE WHOLE INCIDENT. III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID COURTS GAVE