[ G.R. No. 12696. November 19, 1917 ] 37 Phil. 166
[ G.R. No. 12696. November 19, 1917 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PETRA TOLOSA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
An all too frequent occurrence in the Philippines, in which a certain class of ignorant people seem to take a delight, is for two or more individuals to express loudly and in unabridged and forceful words, their frank opinion of each other’s characters and antecedents.
That something like such a neighborhood brawl occurred in this instance, we have little doubt. Two families, living in houses about 15 meters apart, had had altercations on various subjects. The defendant, whom the lower court describes in his decision as having the natural temperament, vehemence of expression, and other peculiar characteristics as indicate the kind of a woman that would stir up disturbances at the least provocation or whenever she feels offended, fanned the flame of her wrath with these quarrels. The result—defendant leaned from her window and hurled at the complainant offensive and scurrilous epithets, including words imputing unchastity to the mother and tending to injure the characters of her daughters.
The common scold was the denomination in by-gone days for women with loose and free tongues; their punishment was the ducking stool. The old common law rule was, that oral words imputing unchastity to a woman were not actionable without proof of special damage. After being denounced as barbarous by eminent English judges, this rule has, within recent years, been discarded in many progressive jurisdictions. In Great Britain, certain provinces of Canada, and certain States of the American Union, oral words imputing unchastity are per se actionable. The Spanish law reaches an identical conclusion.
“The imputation of vice or lack of morality, the consequences of which may greatly damage the fame, credit or interest of the offended party, being a serious insult (injuria grave) according to article 472; and the words which the accused hurled against her to the effect that the ’later’s house was one of ill fame,’ thereby undoubtedly prejudiced her name, fame, and credit, as they attributed lack of morality in her habits which belittles her in the public eye, etc.” (Decisions of the supreme court of Spain of November 22, 1873, and of February 4, 1878; Viada, Codigo Penal, vol. 3, pp. 222 et seq.)
Under the Libel Law, a similar rule prevails in the Philippines. (U. S. vs. Grino [1917], 36 Phil. Rep., 738.) Two decisions of this court are brought to our notice. In the United States vs. Ganzon ([1915] 30 Phil., 1), the defendant and appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, instead of the crime of injurias graves, on the ground principally that the offensive language was not intended to be taken in its literal sense and neither of the parties so understood it. But in the United States vs. Canleon ([1908] 11 Phil., 215), a man was convicted of injurias graves because of insulting words said to a woman.
Our present facts follow rather the latter case than the former. The language used by the defendant was deliberately applied by her to the complaint. The words were uttered with evident intent to injure complainant, to ruin her reputation, and to hold her in public contempt, for the sake of revenge. One who will thus seek to impute vice or immorality to another, the consequences of which might gravely prejudice the reputation of the person insulted, in this instance, apparently an honorable and respectable lady and her young daughters, all prominent in social circles, deserves little judicial sympathy. Certainly, it is time for the courts to put the stamp of their disapproval on this practice of vile and loud slander, which so debauches and degrades womanhood. Shrews must be tamed in the modern Philippines just as they were in the lines of Shakespeare. The words of the Good Book in Proverbs xxi, can also be read “with profit.
Article 457, Nos. 2 and 3, in connection with article 458, last paragraph, of the Penal Code, define such grave insults and provide for their punishment. In accordance with these provisions of the law, the judgment of the lower court is modified by sentencing the defendant and appellant to destierro (banishment), to be served 25 kilometers beyond the municipality of Donsol, Province of Sorsogon, for the period of one year eight months and twenty-one days, to pay a fine of 325 pesetas, or to suffer subsidiary destierro in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C, J., Johnson, Araullo, and Street, JJ., concur.