2. I am filing a complaint for Grave Slander under Article 353 in relation to Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines against Respondent CAV VILLAFUERTE with office address at La Consolation College Manila, 8 Mendiola St., 1005 Manila, Philippines.
3. Respondent CAV VILLAFUERTE is my co-professor in La Consolacion College Manila, College of Hotel and Restaurant Manament.
4. On 11 October 2011, at around 3:00 OClock in the Afternoon, as I was on my way to the classroom to proctor an examination, I saw my student Miele Quiambao. She asked me if I know the rumors circulating in school involving us, I told her that I am not aware of any. She told me that Mr. Alberto Chua, Dean of the Student Affairs, summoned her to his office to confront her about the rumors circulating in school involving her and me. She said that Mr. Chua asked her if she and I have a romantic relationship. I was very surprised. I asked Quiambao to accompany me to accompany me to Mr. Chuas office so that we could ask Mr. Chua who told him about the malicious gossip.
5. When Quiambao and I were at the Office of the Student Affairs, I asked Mr. Chua if there rumors circulating in the school that Quiambao and I do have a relationship. I immediately said no. I asked Mr. Chua again how he came upon the idea that Quiambao and I have a romantic relationship. Mr. Chua said that respondent Villafuerte said that a group of students are: Nicole Basa, Eliza Galang, Clarissa Alcantara, Christine Amador, Justine Guerrero De La Paz, Hannah Barbara Esguerra, Kthleen San Juan, Tristan BluGalang, Rosanna Arcega, Mr. Chua said that when he told respondent Villafuerte suggested that Mr. Chua should talk to the group of students to confirm the rumors instead of confronting us. Nevertheless, Mr. Chua said that he felt that he needed to confront Quiambao and me before h does anything else.
6. The foregoing statement are corroborated by Miele Quiambao in her notarized affidavit dated 2 January 2012 attached hereto as Annex A.
7. I asked Miele Quiambao to leave the office so that I could talk to Mr. Chua that I will call a meeting with the administrative officers of the school and the alleged group of students the following day to confront the issue and to clear my name from the malicious gossip. Mr. Chua agreed.
8. The following day, I held meeting with Mr. Max Muldong, the Director of Academic Senate, Mr. Angel Espiritu, the Dean of College of Hotel and Restaurant Management and Mr. Chua with the class ICA-41 where the alleged group of student belongs. Before the meeting, I told Mr. Chua that I will be
filing criminal complaints against those who spread the malicious gossip. Mr. Chua suddenly said that he was not sure if it was indeed respondent Villafuerte who told him about the alleged romantic relationship of Miele Quiambao and me.
9. During the said meeting, the said group of students pointed to respondent Cav Villafuerte as the one who said that Mielle Quiambao and I have a romantic relationship. They said that early October, while they were having lunch at Amistad, the practicum-cafeteria of the College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, respondent Villafuerte approached them and said loudly, Anoba kayo 1CA41, hindi na kayo nahiya, prof may karelasyon na estudyante, nag popost pa sa facebook!
10. The students were surprised and they immediately asked respondent Villafuerte who the professor and student he was referring to. Nicole Basa even said, Talaga Sir? Tignan ko nga sa facebook pero baka wala na yun. Respondent Villafuerte told her, Meron, may copy ako.
11. The students said they were puzzled but curious about the professor and student with the alleged with the alleged affair. They persisted said that respondent Villafuerte who the alleged student is. The students said that respondent Villafuerte told them that, imposibleng di ninyo alam kaklase ninyo yun e.
12. According to Nicole Basa, she asked respondent Villafuerte who the professor involved was. She said that at that time, I appeared at the cafeteria and went to a table near them. Basa said that respondent Villafuerte pointed at me with his lips. Basa immediately asked respondent Villafuerte if I was the professor involved in a romantic relationship with a student. According to Basa, respondent Villafuerte smiled deviously and said Yes. A copy of the Sinumpaang-Salaysay of Nicole Basa dated 29 December 2011 is attached hereto as Annex B.
Slander under Article 358 of the Revised
13. The acts of respondent Villafuerte constitute Slander under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, in relation to Article 353 and Article 354 of the same, to wit:
Art. 358. Slander. Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisioncorreccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arrestomenor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.353,
Art. 353 Definition of libel. A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or judicial person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Art. 354. Requirement for Publicity. Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if I be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, xxx
15. The elements of the crime of Slander under Article 358 in relation to Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines are as follows: a.That there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or circumstance.
b. That the imputation must be made publicly and orally.
c. That it must be malicious.
d. That the imputation must be directed to a natural person or judicial person or one who is dead. e. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed.
16. Slander is libel committed by oral means, instead of writing. The term oral defamation of slander as now understood, has been defined as the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood. 17. In oral defamation, the language used must be defamatory and clear so as to leave no room for doubt that it is addressed to a determinate person. Although the defamation may be direct or indirect or in the form of allusions, it must be nevertheless be positive, that is, it must express the idea punished by the law. There is oral defamation even if other persons and not the offended party heard the slanderous words. This principle is in accordance with sound reason because even if the offended party himself does not heard by persons whose opinions regarding his honesty and integrity may be involved. 18. It is crystal clear that all the elements of the crime Slander are present in the instant case.
There is an imputation of a vice or act
19. I am happily married man for 13 years with 2 children, ages 19 and 13. I am also a professor in a very conservative school. Respondent Villafuerte, by telling Mr. Chua and (names of students) that I am in a romantic relationship with Mielle Quiambao, has imputed that I was engaged in lascivious and immoral habits.
That the imputation was made publicity and orally.
20. The imputation was made publicity as it was orally communicated to person in school.
The imputation was malicious.
21. The imputation was grossly and maliciously made. Not that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, xxx. Respondent Villafuerte could not have any good intention when he told the students that I am in a romantic relationship with Quiambao. He was not motivated by any duty as professor when he uttered the defamatory words to motivated third persons because if he was really acting out of duty, he should have confirmed my relationship with Quaimbao first, if any, with me or Quiambao. He could directly reported to the administrators of the school. But he chose to tell the students that I am in romantic relationship with Quiambao to injure my reputation and impeach my honesty and virtues.
The imputation was directed to a natural
22. Respondent Villafuerte specifically told the students that I was in romantic relationship with a student leaving no doubt that the imputation was directed to me.
The imputation tend to cause dishonor,
discredit or contempt of the person
23. The imputation caused me shame and injured my reputation and impeached my honesty and vertues.
24. The gravity of the oral defamation depends not only (1) upon the expressions used, but also (2) on the personal relations of the accused and the offended party, and (3) the circumstances surrounding the case. Considering that I am a decent family man, teaching and molding young women for a living, respondent Villafuerte should be indicated for the crime of Grave Slander under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 353 and 354 of the same Code.
25. Responden Villafuerte, in uttering those defamatory remarks, evidently besmirched my reputation, waounded my feeling and humiliated me in public.
26. Damages, in general, refer, to the harm done and what may be recovered. Article 2219 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that:
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries:
(2) Quasi-dilicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious act;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illigal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Act mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named (Emphasis Supplied). 27. Hence, Respondent Twagons defamatory remarks entitle me to recover moral damages from him. 28. On the other hand, Article 2229 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that: Art. 2229. Exemplary or
corrective damages are imposed,
by way of example or correction for the
public good in addition to the moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
29. Exemplary damages are required by public policy for wanton acts must be suppressed. They are antidote so that the poison of wickedness may not run through the body politic. In the absence of moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages, no exemplary damages can be granted, for exemplary damages are allowed only in ADDITION to any of the four kinds of damages mentioned.
30. Thus, exemplary damages must be imposed upon herein Respondent to serve as an example and warning to the public that freedom of expression does not give us the right to soil the good name and reputation of another person.
31. I am thereof claiming the following amounts from Respondent: a.i. Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 300,000.00) by way of moral damages;
a.ii. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 100,000.00) by way of exemplary damages; and
a.iii. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 100,000.00) by way of litigation expenses and attorneys fees.
32. The enjoyment of private reputation is as much as a constitutional right as the possession of live liberty or property. It is one of those rights necessary to human society that underlie the whole scheme of civilization. The law recognized the value of such reputation and imposes upon him who attacks it, by slanderous words of libelous publication, the liability to make full compensation for the damages done.
33. I am executing this Complaint-affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing, to serve as basis for the finding of probable cause to charge Respondent with the crime of Grave Slander under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 353 and 354 of the same Code.
SUBCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this_________ day of _________ at ________. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I am satisfied that he voluntary executed and understood his affidavit.
Republic of the Philippines)
City of __________) S.S.
I, Mielle Quiambao, of legal age, single and a resident of no Espiritu Compound UPS 5 Para±aque City after having been duly sworn is accordance with law, hereby depose and state that: 1. On Tuesday, October 11, 2011, I met my classmate, Kenneth Guarin at the canteen. He approached me and told me that Mr. Alberto Chua, the Student Affairs Dean, was looking for me and wanted to talk to me.
2. I asked Kenneth why the Dean wanted to see me. He replied that he did not know. I thought that it could be concerning my ID which was taken by the guard that day on account of my violation for wearing my chefs uniform during exam week. So I went to the Student Affair Office to retrieve my ID and I was informed by the student assistant that I was supposed to see Mr. Chua first.
3. When I arrived at the office of Mr. Chua, Mr. Chua first just looked at me and then told me to take a seat. Then he asked me if I knew about the rumors circulating about me. I was confused. He asked me if I knew about it. I said I did not know and asked what the rumor was all about. He said If it was true that I have a romantic relationship with Chef Oliver. I said I do not have any relationship with the person. I swore that even if I have to die then, I have no relation with the said person. He then asked me if my parents knew about the rumors. I said I had informed them. He wanted to know what their reaction was and what they advise me to do. I told him that they said I should just not mind it because anyway it was not true, Mr. Bravo asked me to write a letter denying the rumors about me and confirming I had informed my parents about it.
4. After taking my ID, I left the office. As I was walking toward the travel office near the guard house, I came across Chef Ronnie Ramirez. I asked him
if he knew about the rumors. He asked me what it is about. I told him that Mr. Bravo had me called and asked me if I had a relationship with him.
5. Chef Ronnie and I immediately proceeded to Mr. Bravos office. When Chef Ronnie asked Mr. Bravo where he got hold the rumor, Mr. Bravo admitted that Mr. Ed Tawagon was the one who told him about it the day before. On the other hand, Mr. Tawagon admitted to Mr. Bravo that he learned about the rumors from a group of students. Mr. Bravo said that when he told Mr. Tawagon that he would confront me and Chef Ronnie, the person concerned, Mr. Tawagon replied that it was not necessary to do so. He said that the group scattering the rumor should be the persons to talk to. Mr. Bravo disagree and said he would talk to the person concerned which was me.
6. I was then asked to leave the room because Chef Ronnie wanted to talk privately with Mr. Bravo.
7. The following day, my classmate Germaine Karla Garcia, told me that Chef Ronnie had a meeting with the class together with the Deans and the Vice President for Academic Affairs regarding the issue.
8. I had deliberately come to the class late in order to avoid being humiliate by the rumor. I am very much damaged by the rumor. The rumor has spread throughout the school, in the tourism classes from first to fourth year. It has affected my relationship with my classmates, the students of the other classes and year levels, and the professors whose classes I attend. The professors who also heard of the scattered rumor have begun to discriminate against me. My studies have been affected severely by this vicious slander and defamation of character.
9. I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing.
Angelica E. Espelimbergo
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _________day of ______, ______ at
________, affiant exhibiting to me her valid id _____________.
Republic of the Philippines)
Ako, si Rosa Erika V. Mandingiado, nasawastonggulang, dalaga, at nakatirasa no. 25d M.H. Del PilarPurokCatleya, Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City, pagkataposmanumpa an naglalahadna: 1. Ako ay nasaikaapatnataonngkolehiyo, kumukuhang Hotel and Restaurant Management sa La Consolation College, Mendiola St., Manila. 2. Ako ay estudyanteni Mr. Ronnie Ramirez sa subject na Artisan la/Foodstyle lab noong first semester, school year 2011-2012 3. Isangarawnoong October, habang nag lulunch kamingmgakaibigankosa Amistad, lumapitsaminsi Sir Ed Tawagon, professor kosa subject na Brand Cuisine licturesumisigawng, Anoba kayo ICA41 hindina kayo nahiya, prof may karelasyonsaestudyantenagpopost pa safacebook. SinabikokaySir Ed, Talaga Sir? Tignankongasafacebookperobakawalanaiyondun.
Sinabini Sir Ed sa akin, Meron may copy ako. 4. Lahat kami ng friends ko and nagtataka kung sinoiyoungfroffesor at estudyantenatinutukoyni Sir Ed kasiwalatalagakamingideya kung sinosila. Tinanong naming si Sir Ed kungsinoiyongestudyante at sinabini Sir Ed, Imposibleng di ninalakaklasininyoyun eh. Angsabi naming lahat walapotalagakamingalam, Sir. Walapotalagakamingideyakungsino. Tinanong din naming si Sir Ed kungsinoyung professor na involved. Sinabi k okay Sir Ed, Sir, sinopobaiyong professor na involved?
Maya-mayabiglanglumabassi Sir Ronnie Ramirez at pumuntasakabilag table, sa table ngmgaestudyanteniya lower year. Biglangngumusosi Sir Ed sa side na kung nasaansi Sir Ronnie. Naisipkonasi Sir Ronnie yungtinutukoyniya kaya tinanongkosi Sir Ed, Sir, si Sir Ronnie poba? Ngumitisi Sir Ed at sinabing, Oo. 5. PinatutunayankoangkatotohananngmganakalahadsaSinumpaangSalay- saynaito.
Rosa Erika V. MandingiadoAffiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _________day of ______, ______ at ________, affiant exhibiting to me her valid id _____________.