Case Title People v Norma Hernandez

G.R. no. GR 22553-R

Main Topic Justifying Circumstances; Avoidance of Greater Evil

Other Related Topic

Date: April 14, 1959

DOCTRINES
Slander by Deed; One who backs out from an agreement to marry cannot be
held liable for slander by deed – A party to an agreement to marry who backs out
cannot be held liable for the crime of slander by deed, for then that would be an
inherent way of compelling said party to go into marriage without his or her free
consent, and this would contravene the principle in law that could not be done
directly could not be done indirectly; and said party has the right to avoid himself
or herself the evil going through a loveless marriage pursuant to Article 11,
paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

FACTS:

 Vivencio Lascano, 19 y/o, started courting appellant, Maria Norma

Hernandez and after months of courtship, appellant finally accepted
Vivencio. On the same date, she asked him to bring his parents over her
home so that they could talk about their marriage.
 When Vivencio and his parents went to her house, they brought chickens and
goats and they agreed to buy a wedding dress, 2 vestidas, shoes, P20 for the
sponsors and to repair the uncle’s roof.
 While the celebration was going on, Norma was nowhere to be found.
Vivencio and his parents waited but she never showed up thus causing them
great shame and humiliation.
 Norma Hernandez averred that Vivencio was really courting her but that she
wasn’t really in love with him. Her parents tried to persuade her to accept
the proposal and that she only accepted it out of obedience to her parents and
the uncle’s insistence.
 Before Vivencio’s parents came to their home, she already counselled them
not to bring the chickens and that they should not regret whatever may
happen later.
 Norma said she felt torture because she wasn’t honestly in love with
Vivencio and so she decided to leave home as last recourse to prevent the
marriage.
 Norma’s parents also corroborated her testimony.
 RTC convicted her of serious slander by deed because she purposely and
deliberately fled to prevent celebration of marriage. Thus, she appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Norma Hernadez is justified from criminal liability of Slander
when she ran away from her impending marriage.

HELD:
Yes. The Court of Appeals acquitted Norma Hernandez from the crime of
Slander by Deed.

Malice is one of the essential requisites of slander and is not proven in this case.
Norma Hernandez acted with no malice because in changing her mind, she was
merely exercising her right not to give her free consent to the marriage after
mature consideration. She can freely refuse such consent during the actual
marriage even if there was previous valid agreement to marry. It was also shown
that there were no strained relations existing between Vivencio and Norma
before the incident. Thus it cannot be said that Norma was motivated by spite or
ill-will in deliberately frustrating the marriage.

Since Norma had the privilege to change or reconsider her previous commitment
to marry Vivencio, the Court reasoned out that it would be inconsistent to
convict her for the crime of slander simply because she desisted in continuing
with the marriage. Norma had the right to avoid herself the evil of going through
a loveless marriage pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal
Code.