PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

SARIO

GR NUMBERS L-20754 & L-20759

JUNE 30, 1966

Facts: This is a consolidated case filed by complainant Ester Pena against various
defendants, namely Carmen, Dulce, Asuncion, and Francisco, all surnamed Sario. It stemmed out
of a dispute whereby the defendants allegedly ridiculed the complainant by willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously uttering defamatory words in public, branding her as a “mangkukulam”

The defendants then filed a motion to quash as the said complaint did not state
any cause of action. The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision, granting the said motion to
quash, and prompting the prosecutor to file an appeal unto the Court of Appeals which affirmed
in toto the said assailed ruling in the RTC. Hence this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not the accused may be tried for and convicted of the crime of libel.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ester Pena, reversing and setting aside the
decisions of the lower courts.

The lower courts (RTC and CA) ruled over the matter stating that calling a person
a “mankukulam” is not itself a malicious imputation because at this age nobody believes in
witchcraft anymore.

This contention is untenable for the following reasons;

 Libel is present whenever the public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstances
tends to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or
to blacken the memory of one who is dead, is libelous.
 It is stated there in article 353 of the Revised Penal Code that it matters not if said
imputation of a vice is real or not, as the wordings of 353 qualify the same as being
within the ambit of libel even if it is imaginary.
 While it is true that nobody believes in witchcraft anymore, it has been an accepted
norm into our society that such term is used to mock, and to be labeled as such is to
be an object of contempt, even of ridicule.

The Supreme Court also found strength to deny said motion to quash because a
careful reading of the records discloses that the appellees attributed to appellant the
death of 3 persons, hence imputing against her a crime, which is murder.