Article 20 Case Digest: Occena v. Icamina

EULOGIO OCCENA VS. HON. PEDRO M. ICAMINA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH X OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION, SAN JOSE, ANTIQUE, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE HONORABLE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ANTIQUE; AND CRISTINA VEGAFRIA, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. NO. 82146, JANUARY 22, 1990

FACTS:
    On May 31, 1979, the petitioner Eulogio Occena, filed a criminal complaint of grave oral defamation against the respondent, Cristina Vegafria, for allegedly uttering seriously vulgar and malicious words against the respondent in public. This caused great and irreparable damage and injury to his person and honor.
    After the trial, the respondent got convicted of the said crime, but the trial court did not award damages to the petitioner. In the trial courts opinion, the facts and circumstances of the case as adduced by the evidence do not warrant the awarding of moral damages. 
    The petitioner then took the case to the Regional Trial Court. The appeal was then denied because of lack of merit. 
    
ISSUE:
    Whether or not the respondent is civilly liable in relation to the oral defamation case filed against her.

RULING:
    Yes. Civil obligations arising  from criminal offenses are governed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Moreover, Article 2219, par(7) of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case of libel, slander or any form of defamation.





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 91 - Family Code and Case: Nobleza Vs. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038

Article 91           Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.           The law provides for two kinds of properties that shall form part of the absolute community of properties; namely, (1) All properties owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage;           (2) All properties acquired after the celebration of the marriage.           The law provides, however, that even if the parties are governed by the absolute community, they may agree that some properties be exempted form its coverage. If that is so, then, the ante-nuptial agreement embodied in their law further provides that there are proper...
Read more

Article 20 Case Digest: Sps. Quisumbing Vs. Meralco

SPOUSES ANTONIO AND LORNA QUISUMBING, PETITIONER VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENT G.R. NO. 142943, APRIL 3, 2002 FACTS:     On March 3, 1995, the respondents took a routine check of all single phased meters in Green Meadows avenue. The house owned by the petitioners was one of the houses that was inspected. The petitioners was not around at the of the inspection, the petitioners asked permission from the petitioners through their secretary. The secretary witnessed the inspection. Upon inspection, the respondents discovered that the terminal seal of the meter was missing, the meter cover seal was deformed, the meter dials of the meter was mis-aligned and there were scratches on the meter base plate. This was a clear sign that the meter has been tampered. The petitioners denied liability for the tampering. The respondent then, temporarily disconnected the electric services of the petitioners until they pay the amount of P178,875.01 representing the differential ...
Read more

Article 39, Case Digest - Family Code: Wiegel vs. Judge Sempio-Diy

  LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, respondents. G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986 PARAS, J.: Facts:           This a petition for certiorari for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the petitioner, Lilia Wiegel and respondent, Karl Heinz Wiegel, by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City.           Herein respondent claims that his marriage to the petitioner is void because of an existing marriage prior to their marriage. The petitioner contends that her first marriage was void because they forced to enter in the said marriage. Moreover, the petitioner assails that her first husband had a prior existing marriage, therefore, making the marriage void.           Respondent jud...
Read more