G.R. No. 226454 - DIGNA RAMOS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of one (1) year and one (1) day, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months, as maximum, of prision correccional and ordered to pay Dumaua the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages, as well as the costs of suit. [10] Ramos separately moved for a new trial and for reconsideration, both of which were denied in Resolutions dated September 28, 2009 and November 16, 2009, respectively. Aggrieved, she appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Tuao, Cagayan, Branch 11 (RTC). [11] The RTC Ruling In a Decision [12] dated September 4, 2014, the RTC affirmed the MCTC ruling in toto [13] It found that the prosecution has indeed established the fact that Ramos uttered defamatory statements of a serious and insulting nature against Dumaua through the positive testimonies not only of the latter, but also of the latter's corroborative witnesses. As such, Ramos's bare denial that she did not say anything defamatory against Dumaua cannot be given any credence for being unsubstantiated and self-serving. [14] Dissatisfied, Ramos filed a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court before the CA. [15] The CA Ruling In a Decision [16] dated March 29, 2016, the CA affirmed the rulings of the courts a quo, with modification, adjusting Ramos's period of imprisonment to four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum, in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law. [17] Agreeing with the findings of the courts a quo, the CA ruled that Ramos's bare denials could not stand against the clear and positive testimony of the witnesses that she indeed uttered the words "ukininam, puta, awan ad-adal mo" which means "vulva of your mother, prostitute, illiterate" against Dumaua. In this regard, the CA held that such words were defamatory and serious in nature as the scurrilous imputations strike deep into the victim's character. [18] Undaunted, Ramos moved for reconsideration [19] but the same was denied in a Resolution [20] dated August 10, 2016; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld Ramos's conviction for the crime of Grave Oral Defamation. The Court's Ruling The appeal is partly meritorious. At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. [21] "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law." [22] Moreover, while it is a general rule that a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of