FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240996. October 3, 2018.]
BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THRU THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PROSECUTOR, REGION V, LEGAZPI CITY, AND ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 3, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240996 — Bienvenido T. Canlapan, Petitioner, vs. Department of Justice, thru The Office of the Regional Prosecutor, Region V, Legazpi City, and Atty. William B. Balayo, Respondents.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time praying for an additional period of 15 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After carefully reviewing the allegations, arguments, and issues in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its March 8, 2018 Decision and its July 25, 2018 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 152256 to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. On the contrary, the CA's Decision and Resolution are in accord with the facts and applicable laws and jurisprudence.
The CA correctly affirmed the Resolution and the Order of the Office of the Regional Prosecutor, Region V, after it found that the latter did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed the Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor, which dismissed petitioner's complaint for Grave Slander for lack of merit.
To warrant conviction for slander or oral defamation, the following elements must be present: (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) that such imputation must be made orally; (3) publicly; (4) maliciously; (5) directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; (6) and 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.
In this case, we agree with the investigating prosecutor that there was nothing defamatory or malicious with the words, "Maski sampulo (10) pang abugado darahon mo, dai mo makua ang gusto mo! (Even if you bring ten (10) lawyers here, you will not get what you want!)." This Court has held that "the fact the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself." 1 Since the elements of the crime of slander, whether simple or grave are absent, the CA correctly affirmed the Office of the Regional Prosecutor of Region V. Moreover, in the case of Lao v. Co, 2 this Court declared that: TAIaHE
[t]he decision whether to dismiss a complaint or not depends upon the sound discretion of the prosecutor and, ultimately, that of the Secretary of Justice. Findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review unless made with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, courts will not normally interfere with the prosecutor's discretion to file or not to file a criminal case.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to AFFIRM the March 8, 2018 Decision and the July 25, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152256.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., on official travel.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.De Leon v. People, 776 Phil. 701, 717 (2016).
2. 585 Phil. 134, 140 (2008).