Department of Justice Office of The City Prosecutor

Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of Vigan
LOVELY ANNE JOY C. LAZO

MIRELA A. VERZOSA
Complainants,
Criminal Case No. ___________

-versus- For: GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION
Under Article 358
of the
Revised Penal
Code
ARYAN MANGLAPUS, RAQUEL BASABAS, and

JOHANNA VILORIA
Respondents,
x---------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
The respondents ARYAN MANGLAPUS, RAQUEL BASABAS, and JOHANNA

VILORIA were charged of the crime of Oral Defamation in a complaint filed by
LOVELY ANNE JOY C. LAZO and MIRELA A. VERZOSA.
In support of their complaint, the herein complainants attached the

following documents:
1. Sworn Statement of Mr. Santiago Reolalas;

2. Police Blotter by SPO3 Purificacion Pilar Pandoro; and,
3. Counter Affidavit of Respondents, Aryan Cesar J. Manglapus; and,
Raquel A. Basabas and Johanna A. Viloria.
Statement of Facts
Based on the complaint together with the sworn statement submitted,

the facts of the case are stated hereunder:
That on January 30, 2019, at about 10:00 a.m., the complainants

were busy shopping at Guess, Vigan City, when complainant Mirela
Verzosa saw respondents, their college classmates, pass by, and the
latter are eyeing complainant Lovely Anne Joy C. Lazo. When
complainants exited the store, they were surprised when respondent
Aryan Cesar Manglapus shouted “Pokpok ka nga babai, Lovely! Ta la
agputputa ti ammom pati diay boyfriend ko inagaw mo puta! Nagado la
garod nga lalaki mon di ka palang marnek! Deta gayyem mo napasurot
mo payen nga agputa nya? My God! Bitchy!” Thereafter, the two other
respondents Raquel Basabas and Johanna Viloria started uttering
Page 1 of 5
offensive remarks. Basabas shouted, “Ay wen! Agpadpada da nga
aggayyem puputa da!” and Viloria said, “Talaga ah kinabit pay deta nga
Lovely tay lolong ko! Yuck!” The acts of respondents provoked
complainant Lazo to slap respondent Aryan Manglapus on the face. The
latter continuously uttered defamatory words despite being slapped.
When complainant Lazo was about to slap the other respondents, SPO3
Purificacion Pilar Pandoro intervened and upon seeing her, the
respondents immediately ran.
That the respondents’ remarks saying that: 1) complainant Lazo

took away respondent Manglapus’ boyfriend, and that the former has
illicit sexual relationships with several men, and; 2) complainant Verzosa
is a whore, added insult and injury to complainants’ name and
reputation.
CONTRARY TO LAW
In a sworn statement by Mr. Santiago Reolalas, he stated therein that the

parties are his students, and that he personally saw the respondents orally
defame the complainants. He stated that he heard respondent Manglapus utter
the words “Pokpok ka nga babai, Lovely! Ta la agputputa ti ammom pati diay
boyfriend ko inagaw mo puta! Nagado la garod nga lalaki mon di ka palang
marnek! Deta gayyem mo napasurot mo payen nga agputa nya? My God!
Bitchy!” to complainant Lovely Lazo. It was seconded by respondent Basabas
when she said “Ay wen! Agpadpada da nga aggayyem puputa da!,” and by
respondent Viloria when she also said “Talaga ah kinabit pay deta nga Lovely
tay lolong ko! Yuck!” Complainant Lazo slapped respondent Manglapus due to
humiliation. When a police officer appeared, the respondents hurriedly ran
away.
In the Police Report filed by SPO3 Purificacion Pilar Pandoro, she stated
that initial investigation disclosed that the parties had an altercation wherein
“Pokpok ka nga babai, Lovely! Ta la agputputa ti ammom pati diay boyfriend
ko inagaw mo puta! Nagado la garod nga lalaki mon di ka palang marnek! Deta
gayyem mo napasurot mo payen nga agputa nya? My God! Bitchy!” to
complainant Lazo. Thereafter, the two other respondents Basabas and Viloria
started uttering offensive remarks. Basabas shouted, “Ay wen! Agpadpada da
nga aggayyem puputa da!” and Viloria said, “Talaga ah kinabit pay deta nga
Lovely tay lolong ko! Yuck!” The acts of respondents provoked complainant
Lazo to slap respondent Manglapus on the face. The latter continuously uttered
defamatory words despite being slapped. The respondents ran away after
seeing the police.
In their counter-affidavit, the respondents denied the allegations of the

complaint, saying that they were not eyeing complainant Lazo, but were
merely having a usual “guy sight-seeing” in Plaza Maestro Vigan City. They
stated that they did not utter offensive remarks to complainant Lazo. They
were with their friend Chrisma Nelvis at the time of the incident. They were
surprised when complainant Lazo ran swiftly towards them and forcefully
grabbed respondent Manglapus’ hair and shoulders until the latter fell in the
concrete pavement. After falling, complainant Lazo continued to grab
Page 2 of 5
respondent Manglapus’ hair and started say screaming, “Hoy! Aryan nga agin e-
emma ka paylang! Nakitak mismo diay cellphone message ni boyfriend ko nga
saysayetem isuna! Gayam, nakarkaro gayam ti kinapokpok, linaputam ken
kinagatel mo kanyak! Hanko expektaren nga pati toy boyfriend ko sulutem!
Usto talaga diay kunkunada nga nasa loob ang kulo ng mga tahimik!”
Complainant Lazo also clawed respondent Manglapus’ neck and chest.
Respondents Basabas and Viloria tried to stop complainant Lazo from her
violent acts, however, complainant Verzosa likewise grabbed respondents’
Basabas and Viloria’s hair to remove them from the incident, while she
shouted, “Hoy! Dwa kayo nga puputa haan yo pagtinnulungan ni sisterets ko!
Pudno met a nalaslasbang suna ngem deta gayyem yo nga ni Aryan!” While the
commotion was ongoing, the alarmed public went to Plaza Maestro Security
Office (PMSO) to report the same. While complainants evaded the security
officers, they endlessly yelled, “Addanto aldaw yo kaniami nga tallo a lalaad!
Lalaad! Sasayet! Puputa!” Respondents claim that complainants’ remarks
injured their name and reputation.
In the affidavit of witness Chrisma Nelvis for the respondents, she stated
that she, together with the respondents, were having a good day at Plaza
Maestro, Vigan City, when complainant Lazo suddenly came and physically and
verbally harassed respondent Manglapus. Complainant Verzosa did the same to
respondents Basabas and Viloria when the latter tried to stop complainant
Lazo. Nelvis further stated that she tried to stop them but she was not able to,
until such time that the security officers arrived. She put forth that
respondents were humiliated and embarrassed because of the acts of the
complainants.
Analyses/Findings and Recommendations
Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code specifically states as follows:
“Art 353. Definition of libel. – A libel is a public and malicious

imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or
any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to
cause the dishonour, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”
Art. 358 of the same Code, as a form of libel likewise provides:
“Art. 358. Slander. – Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto

mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature;
otherwise, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos.
In the case of Amelia Larobis vs. Court of Appeals and People of the
Philippines the accused was held to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of grave oral defamation. The Court of Appeals and two trial courts
Page 3 of 5
found that petitioner had shouted, within hearing distance of several persons,
the following words calculated to humiliate and to cast aspersion on the
complainant:
LIMBONGAN, MARO NGA MAGTUTUDLO, PATAY GUTOM, TIGULANG GIUBAN NA,

BOGOLL, HUGAWAN, IPASALBIDS KA NAKO NI DODONG AMORA (“You are a cheat
, a dishonest teacher, you are dead hungry, an old person with grey hair, dull,
dirty, I will have you salvaged by Dodong Amora”)
As reiterated in the case of De Leon v. People, the Court thoroughly

discussed the nature of Oral Defamation and the parameters for classifying the
same as either Grave or Slight:
Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means,

instead of in writing. It is defined as "the speaking of base and
defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation,
office, trade, business or means of livelihood."
The elements of oral defamation are: (1) there must be an imputation of
a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
status or circumstances; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) and
maliciously; (5) directed to a natural or juridical person, or one who is
dead; (6) which tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of the
person defamed. Oral defamation may either be simple or grave. It
becomes grave when it is of a serious and insulting nature.
Similarly, Jurisprudence has laid down a test to determine the defamatory

character of words used in the following manner:
"Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy

reputation than false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical
language is a favored vehicle for slander. A charge is sufficient if the words
are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the
person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain
offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or
to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule” ( G. R. No. 212623,
January 11, 2016)
As in this case, the following facts and circumstances based on the

personal knowledge of the witnesses show that there was probable cause to
believe that respondents had just committed a crime, viz:
1. Aryan Cesar Manglapus’ statement which Mr. Santiago Reolalas

overheard the utterances made by respondent; and,
2. Mr. Santiago Reolalas’ statements proving such defamatory utterances
was made.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

recommended that an Information for the crime of GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION
be filed against the respondents ARYAN MANGLAPUS, RAQUEL BASABAS, and
JOHANNA VILORIA.
Page 4 of 5
Vigan City, Ilocos Sur.
KENT ALVIN GUZMAN

Assistant City Prosecutor
LENDL DON-DON R. PLANA

JUN JUN A. RENTUTAR

APPROVED BY:
DACY IMEE T. CALINDAS

Chief City Prosecutor
Page 5 of 5

Department of Justice Office of The City Prosecutor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Justice Office of The City Prosecutor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Justice Office of The City Prosecutor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

LOVELY ANNE JOY C. LAZO

Criminal Case No. ___________

ARYAN MANGLAPUS, RAQUEL BASABAS, and

The respondents ARYAN MANGLAPUS, RAQUEL BASABAS, and JOHANNA

In support of their complaint, the herein complainants attached the

1. Sworn Statement of Mr. Santiago Reolalas;

Based on the complaint together with the sworn statement submitted,

That on January 30, 2019, at about 10:00 a.m., the complainants

That the respondents’ remarks saying that: 1) complainant Lazo

In a sworn statement by Mr. Santiago Reolalas, he stated therein that the

In their counter-affidavit, the respondents denied the allegations of the

Analyses/Findings and Recommendations

Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code specifically states as follows:

“Art 353. Definition of libel. – A libel is a public and malicious

Art. 358 of the same Code, as a form of libel likewise provides:

“Art. 358. Slander. – Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto

LIMBONGAN, MARO NGA MAGTUTUDLO, PATAY GUTOM, TIGULANG GIUBAN NA,

As reiterated in the case of De Leon v. People, the Court thoroughly

Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means,

Similarly, Jurisprudence has laid down a test to determine the defamatory

"Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy

As in this case, the following facts and circumstances based on the

1. Aryan Cesar Manglapus’ statement which Mr. Santiago Reolalas

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

KENT ALVIN GUZMAN

LENDL DON-DON R. PLANA

JUN JUN A. RENTUTAR

DACY IMEE T. CALINDAS

You might also like