CASE DIGEST

54 - People v Norma Hernandez CA 55 OG 8465

Criminal Law 1

Court COURT OF APPEALS

Citation G.R. No. 22553-R
Date 14 APRIL 1959
Plaintiff-Appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Accused-Appellants MARIA NORMA HERNANDEZ (DEFENDANT & APPELLANT), MARIANO HERNANDEZ AND
RAMONA MARTINEZ
Relevant topic • Heading: Justifying circumstances - Avoidance of a Greater Evil or Injury
● REVISED PENAL CODE
ARTICLE 11 PARAGRAPH 4
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – The following do not incur any criminal liability:
4. Any Person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
Definitions Slander – spoken defamation (false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to
someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice)
Slander by deed - Slander by deed is a crime against honor, which is committed by performing
any act, which casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person.

“Damage to another” – injury to persons or damage to property

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:
Full Name Tag Character Description
Maria Norma Hernandez (“Norma”) Woman accused of slander by deed for backing out
of an agreement to marry
Vivencio Lascano (“Vivencio”) 19 year old Man who proposed and was supposed
to marry Norma
Mariano Hernandez and Ramona Martinez (“Mariano” and Parents of Norma Hernandez
“Ramona”

FACTS:
• AUGUST 1954 – Vivencio Lascano (19 years of age), the complainant, started courting Norma.
• JANUARY 6, 1955 – Norma finally accepted Vivencio provided he bring his parents to his house.
• FEBRUARY 6, 1955 – Vivencio, along with his parents and 12 aunts, went to Norma’s house, bringing with them chickens
and goats so he could propose to her for marriage.
o Agreed that MARCH 19, 1955 was to be the date of the wedding and to held at Roman Catholic Church at Taal
Batangas.
o Other conditions included: Vivencio’s parents buy wedding dress, 2 vestidos, pair of shoes for bride, give P20
for fetching of sponsors and repairing roof of Aunt of Norma.
• FEBRUARY 21, 1955 – They filed for their application for marriage and consent of their parents.
• MARCH 5, 1955 – Marriage license was issued. They confirmed the proclamation of marriage with the parish priest in
Batangas and ordered the gown to arrive at Norma’s house on March 16, 1955.
• MARCH 11, 1955 – She left their house without notice and went to Mindoro and stayed with her cousin until April.
• MARCH 16-18, 1955 – Gown was delivered but Norma wasn’t there. Vivencio’s parents gave the P20 to her father,
cleaned the surroundings, built the shed for the wedding and slaughtered goats, chickens and pigs.
• MARCH 19, 1955 (DAY OF WEDDING) – Norma didn’t arrive and was waited until the midnight, however, she never
arrived, leading to embarrassment of Vivencio.
• APPELANT’S CONTENTION: He courted her but she was not in love with him. Her parents just persuaded her to accept
the marriage proposal.
o Even her parents denied that Vivencio’s parents complied with the conditions set by them to avoid
embarrassment.
• Vivencio states that Norma absconded to prevent the marriage celebration and she committed slander by deed.
• Court of First Instance ruling below:
Page 1 of 2
CASE DIGEST
54 - People v Norma Hernandez CA 55 OG 8465
Criminal Law 1

Court of First Instance Ruling

• Court of First Instance of Batangas after due trial
acquitted Mariano Hernandez and Ramona
Martinez.
• Convicted Norma Hernandez and sentenced her to
pay a fine of P300, to indemnify the offended party
in the sum of P200.

• APPELLANT APPEALED THIS DECISION

ISSUE & HELD:
WHETHER OR NOT NORMA SHOULD BE CONVICTED ON THE GROUND OF SERIOUS SLANDER BY DEED?
- NO.
RATIO:

• Solicitor General says: Malice, one of the essential requisites of slander hasn’t been proven. There is no malice in the act of the appellant
changing her mind. She was merely exercising her right not to give her consent the marriage after mature consideration.
• Furthermore, there were no strained relations existing between the complainant & appellant before the incident. There always existed
good relations between them for they were neighbours so it cannot be sustained that appellant was motivated by spite or ill-will in
deliberately frustrating the marriage.
• Appellant has the privilege to reconsider her previous commitment to marry and it would be utterly inconsistent to convict her for slander
by deed simply because she desisted in continuing with the marriage. If she would be liable then that would be tantamount to compelling
her to go into a marriage without her free consent and this goes against the principle that what could not be done directly could not be
done indirectly.
• Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless marriage. (Art. 11 Par.4, RPC)

RULING:
With the foregoing reasonings of the appellee we are in full accord; so, as prayed for by both parties, the appealed judgment
is hereby reversed and the appellant ACQUITTED with costs de officio (each party bears his own expenses).

Page 2 of 2