1 Page Pp vs. Vicenta Navia Crim. Case No.

R-6817 for Slight Oral Defamation

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
8Th Judicial Region
Maasin City, Southern Leyte
-oOo-

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant; Crim. Case No. R-6817
-versus- For: SLIGHT ORAL
DEFAMATION
VICENTA NAVIA,
Accused.
x---------------------------------x

DECISION

In its information dated 29 February 2016, the prosecution

alleged:

“That on or about the 19th day of November 2015, at

Brgy. Abgao, City of Maasin, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused,
with deliberate intent of bringing the complainant,
SATURNINA MABITAD, into dishonor, discredit and contempt,
did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
while in the heat of anger, through telephone speak address
accused Saturnina Mabitad, in vernacular saying “IKAW HA,
BAGA KA UG NAWONG IMONG BAWION NANG SOBRA SA
SAN JOAQUIN PAKAUWAWAN TA KA UG DI NA NIMO I-ULI
BAGA UG NAWONG”, which in English means “You, you are
thick faced! We will get back the excess lot in San Joaquin. I
will put you to shame if you will return it. (Thick faced) in her
residence, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant
Saturnina Mabitad.

During the arraignment on17 May 2016, accused assisted by

his counsel Atty. Jerome A. Curtina, pleaded not guilty to the charge
and as this case is covered by the rule on Summary Procedure, the
same was referred to the Philippine Mediation Center at the
Bulwagan Ng Katarungan, Maasin City, Southern Leyte for mediation
and as no settlement was reached by the parties during the Judicial
Dispute Resolution, they proceeded to the stipulation of facts,
markings of exhibits, identification of witnesses and defined issue/s
including the setting of trial dates.

The prosecution marked the following exhibits: Exh. “A”-

Affidavit of Saturnina Mabitad; Exh. “B”-Affidavit of Josefina Oreta;
Exh. “C”-Affidavit of Frederick Oreta; Exh. “D”-Reply Affidavit of
Saturnina Mabitad; Exh. “E”-Affidavit (in reply) of Frederick Oreta;
2 Page Pp vs. Vicenta Navia Crim. Case No. R-6817 for Slight Oral Defamation

Exh. “F”-Affidavit (in reply) of Josefina Oreta; Exh. “G”- Deed of

Absolute Sale attached to the Counter-Affidavit of accused; Exh. “H”-
Tax Decl.No. 00751 in the name of spouses Jade and Saturnina
Mabitad; Exh. “I”-Compromise Agreement executed by Ernanita
Baguio, Diosdado Villamor and Vicente Navia; Exh. “J”- Deed of
Absolute Sale executed by Ernanita Baguio in consonance with the
Compromise Agreement Exh. “K”- Minutes of the Proceedings before
the Lupon of San Joaquin, Macrohon, Southern Leyte for Qualified
Theft & Trespass; Exh. “L”- Print out of photo shots of mobile phone
of Saturnina Mabitad; Exh. “M”- Official Receipt No. 3068 dated
November 17, 2015; Exh. “N”- (reserved) Official Receipt for the filing
fee.

On the other hand, the defense marked the following exhibits:

Exh. “1”- Counter-Affidavit of Vicenta Navia; Exh. “2”- Special Power
of Attorney executed by Ernanita Baguio; Exh. “3”-
Affidavit/Rejoinder of Vicenta Navia; Exh. “4”-Deed of Absolute Sale
executed by Ernanita Baguio in favor of Saturnina Mabitad; Exh. “5”-
Sertipikasyon Sa Pagpasaka Ug Aksiyon, page 61 of the records;
Exh. “6”- Affidavit of Raul Esma; and Exh. “7”- Affidavit of Estrella
Vistar
During the initial presentation of prosecution’s evidence, they
presented the private complainant herself, Saturnina O. Mabitad, 52
years old, married, Housewife and a resident of Brgy. Abgao,
Maasin City Leyte.
She testified having executed a Complaint Affidavit dated 17
November 2015, identified as Exh. “A”, in relation to this case which
serves as her direct testimony under the rule on Summary Procedure,
In substance, she stated that she knew Vicenta Navia only in August
2015, when the latter acted as Attorney-in-fact for Ernanita Baguio
relative to a portion of land purchased in San Joaquin, Macrohon,
Southern Leyte; that on November 16, 2015 at around 10 o’clock in
the morning, she received a call from Vicenta Navia at her residence
in Brgy. Abgao, Maasin City; that when she confirmed that it was
Vicenta Navia talking to, the latter said “IKAW HA, BAGA KA UG
NAWONG IMONG BAWION NANG SOBRA SA SAN JOAQUIN
PAKAUWAWAN TA KA UG DI NA NIMO I-ULI BAGA UG NAWONG”, which
in English means “You, you are thick faced! We will get back the
excess lot in San Joaquin. I will put you to shame if you will return it.
Thick faced!).
That those words were uttered in an angry way and she was
very much humiliated because at the time of the call, she had visitors
in her house, the spouses Frederick and Josefina Oreta; that she
gave the phone to Josefina because she was too upset to continue
listening; that the affidavit of Josefina Oreta attesting to what Vicenta
Navia was saying against Saturnina Mabitad while the latter was
listening to the phone is attached hereto as Annex “A”; that after a
3 Page Pp vs. Vicenta Navia Crim. Case No. R-6817 for Slight Oral Defamation

while Vicenta Navia again called her home telephone, but since she
was still too upset to answer it, Frederick Oreta, the husband of
Josefina Oreta picked it up and took the call; that the affidavit of Mr.
Orita recounting the call from Vicenta Navia that he took is hereto
attached as Annex “B”; that those two (2) successive abusive calls of
Vicenta Navia were not only instances when the latter stirred trouble
for her since it all began when she disturbed her agreement with
Ernanita Baguio, relative to the sale of a portion of her (Baguio’s) land
which was about to be foreclosed by the Rural Bank of Maasin, such
that until now, she have not been able to secure their own title to the
portion purchased by them notwithstanding their payment of more
that the agreed purchase price thereof.
That she has heard from friends and sympathizers that Vicenta
Navia, had been saying bad things about her in Brgy. San Joaquin,
Macrohon, Southern Leyte, to the point of even asking certain men
there to burn their family’s cottage and remove the fence they have
erected around that portion purchased from Ms. Baguio; that as such
and in order to stop Vicenta Navia from humiliating and intriguing
against her, she filed this complaint.
The next prosecution witness was Josefina M. Oreta, 44
years old, married and a resident of Brgy. Ibarra, Maasin City,
Southern Leyte and a homemaker.
The Judicial Affidavit dated19 August 2017 narrates that she
executed two affidavits in relation to this case, the first one an
Affidavit and a Reply Affidavit; that she don’t know Vicenta Navia but
she heard her voice on the phone that time she shouted defamatory
words against Nenette (Saturnina Mabatid) last November 16, 2015
sometime past 10:00 o’clock in the morning at Nenette’s residence in
Brgy. Abgao; that they were at Nenette’s house as the latter is their
close friend and every time they come home from Manila, they would
always find time to visit her just to talk, so they would stay updated
with the events of each other’s lives; that she heard Vicenta Navia
telling Nenette over the phone at that time and shouted
“MANGINGILAD KA! BAGA KA UG NAWONG! I-ULI NANG
6,000.SHIT KA!” “She shouted at Nenette “YOU’RE A SWINDLER!
THICK FACED! RETURN THE 6,000. YOU’RE A SHIT!
That while they were talking to Nenette, her landline
(telephone) rang and answered it and not long after she took the call,
she was wondering why Nenette suddenly turned pale, then Nenette
gave the phone to her and she was shocked because she heard a
woman’s voice from the other line shouting the following words:
“You’re a swindler! Thick-faced! Return the 6,000 You’re a shit!; that
she was not able to answer because Vicenta Navia, ended the call
right after she shouted those words; that as the phone rang again and
as she and Nenette were in the state of shock, it was Eric (her
husband) who answered it as Nenette, aside from going pale,
4 Page Pp vs. Vicenta Navia Crim. Case No. R-6817 for Slight Oral Defamation

suddenly sweated profusely, even her nose was sweating; that

Nenette was not sweating before she answered the phone; that she
made a Reply Affidavit, in relation to this case because Vicenta Navia
and her witnesses were lying; that they are claim that Nenette said a
lot of things to Vicenta Navia which was heard by the Vicenta Navia
witnesses as Navia allegedly had her phone on speaker (mode); that
allegation is not true, Nenette was unable to say anything and she
was also not even able to say anything and the telephone line was
clear that’s why she do not believe that Navia had her phone on
speaker (mode); that the allegation also that Vicenta said that she
could not remember that telling Nenette “You’re a swindler! Thick
faced! Return the 6,000 you’re a shit! Is also a lie as she will not
forget what she heard on that day.
The next prosecution witness was Frederick S. Oreta, 48
years old, married and a resident of Brgy. Ibarra, Maasin City,
Southern Leyte and a businessman.
In his Judicial Affidavit dated19 August 2017, he stated that he
prepared two (2) affidavits in relation to this case, an Affidavit and
Reply Affidavit as he was at the incident in question; in fact he was
the one who answered the second phone call and heard the words
spoken against private complainant Nenette (Saturnina Mabitad); that
on November 16, 2015, they were in Maasin at that time and since
they were friends with Nenette; that he and his wife, Josefina Oreta,
visited Nenette’s House at around 10:00 in the morning and as they
were friends, they chat and update each other as they were most
often in Manila and their child is studying there; that while they were
conversing, the landline telephone rang, Nenette answered, so their
conversation was stopped; that he noticed that Nenette suddenly
turned pale and she passed the phone to his wife who accepted the
receiver and listened to what was said on the other end; that she
could not also speak, just like Nenette and then she put down the
phone.
That a few minutes, the phone rang again, Nenette and his wife
seemed to be in shock, they did not make any move to answer, that’s
why he answered the phone and it was a woman’s voice, and she
was very angry and shouted “Your mother is a swindler!; that he was
not able to say a word right away because he was very surprised as
she was very angry; that it was only later when he was able to tell her
that he was not the son of Nenette but the grandson of Felimon
Saavedra; that she become silent for a while, then she again said that
Nenette is a swindler, but in a calmer voice; that he told her that if it’s
true, then she should file a criminal case in court; that she added
saying Nenette is a criminal, she is the one declared P200.00 only at
the BIR after which, she put down the phone; that he executed a
Reply Affidavit to refute the witnesses of Vicenta Navia because they
were lying alleging that Nenette said a lot of things to Vicenta Navia
5 Page Pp vs. Vicenta Navia Crim. Case No. R-6817 for Slight Oral Defamation

and that the reason why her witnesses heard what Nenette said was
because Navia had her phone on speaker (mode).
The last prosecution witness presented was Consuelo A.
Demeterio, 58 years old, married, barangay secretary of Brgy.
San Joaquin, Macrohon, Southern Leyte and a resident of the
same barangay.
The jest of her testimony centered on the fact on the
correctness and authenticity of the minutes of conciliation
proceedings which she identified and prepared hereto marked as
Exh. “K” for the prosecution.
After the presentation of the last witness for the prosecution,
the latter formally offered its documentary exhibits with the
corresponding purpose/s namely: Exhs. “A, “B”,“C”,”D”,”E”,”F”,”G”,
“H”, “I”, “J”, “K”, “L”, “O” and “P” with their corresponding purpose/s
and taking into account the Comment/Opposition thereto by the
defense and finding all exhibits to be relevant and material to this
case, the same are admitted by the Court as evidence for the
prosecution.
In the meantime, the reception of defense evidence
commenced with the presentation of its first witness in the person of
the accused herself Vicenta Navia, 53 years old, married, and a
resident of Brgy. Mohon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte.
Her Judicial Affidavit dated 6 December 2018, which serves as
her direct testimony recounts that she knows Saturnina Mabitad, the
private complainant in this case because they meet at the Barangay
Hall of San Joaquin wherein Ernanita Baguio, filed a complaint
against Saturnina Mabitan about the land that she bought from
Ernanita Baguio; that the allegation that she told Saturnina Mabitad
the words “IKAW HA BAGA KA UG NAWONG, AMONG BAWION
NANG SIBRA SA SAN JOAQUIN, PAKAUWAWAN TAKA UG DI NA
NIMO I-ILI BAGA UG NAWONG” is not true, what she said was this
“that in order to end up our problem, just return the excess portion of
the land or pay mam Ernanita Baguio; that Estrella “Astring” Vistar,
Lita Telen and Raul Esma heard their conversation.
That Estrella “Astring” Vistar was a former caretaker of
Saturnina Mabitad in her Beach Resort at San Joaquin, Lita Telen is
a neighbor of Estrella Vistar in San Joaquin and Raul Esma is from
Barangay Mohon and she asked him to accompany her to the rice
field; that she was having a conversation with Saturnina Mabitad,
because her telephone number was written in the billboard of her
Beach Resort and she was told by Estrella Vistar that she was
instructed by Saturnina Mabitad to tell her that she wanted her and
Ernanita Baguio to be incarcerated; that she will investigate and
reveal her life while she was in Manila; that she was left by her
husband and allegedly transferred the land of Ernanita Baguio in her
6 Page Pp vs. Vicenta Navia Crim. Case No. R-6817 for Slight Oral Defamation

name. Said witness further testified that she don’t know the persons
of Frederick and Josefina Oreta.
The next witness for the defense was Estrella Vistar, 68 years
old, married, Filipino, housewife and a resident of Brgy. San
Joaquin, Macrohon, Southern Leyte.
She executed an Affidavit dated 21 December 2015, and stated
that she was a caretaker of Saturnina O. Mabitad’s beach resort
(Harmony Beach Resort located at San Joaquin, Macrohon, Southern
Leyte; that sometime in the month of November while she was in the
premises of the beach resort, she received a call from Saturnina
Mabitad ordering her to tell Vicenta Navia, that she will send the latter
and mam Nany Baguio to jail; that she asked her the reason and the
latter replied, “AYAW NA PANGUTANA NGANO, BASTA AKONG
UTINGKAYON IJANG KINABUHI SA DIHANG DIDTO PA SIJA SA
MANILA, GIBIYAAN NA SIYA SA IJANG BANA, AKO NA SIJANG
IPAPRESO ADTO-A SIYA, SULTII” (don’t anymore ask why, I will
investigate and reveal her life while she was still in Manila, she was
left by her husband, I will send her to jail, Go and tell her).

That on November 16, 2015, Vicenta Navia went to her house

and they were having a short conversation, as she was ordered by
Saturnina Mabitad to tell Vicenta Navia about the former’s plan, she
then told her exactly what Saturnina has told her; that she then saw
Vicenta Navia, dialed her cellular phone and was having a
conversation with her boss Saturnina Mabitad; that she heard their
conversation because the cellular phone of Vicenta was put on a loud
speaker-mode; that she heard Vicenta Navia telling her boss
Saturnina, “ibalik and sobra, among bawi-on ang sobra sa juta sa
San Joaquin (return the excess, we will get back the excess lot in
San Joaquin); that contrary to Saturnina Mabitad’s allegation, she
have not heard Vicenta Navia saying “IKAW HA, BAGA KA UG
NAWONG! PAKAUWAWAN TAKA UG DI NA NIMO IULI” (You, you
are thick faced! I will put you to shame if you will not return it”).
The defense presented their last witness in the person of Raul
S. Esma, 71 years old, married, Filipino, fish vendor and a
resident of Brgy. Mohon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte.
In his Affidavit dated 21 December 2015, he narrated that on
November 16, 2015 he was with Vicenta Navia because as they are
planning to visit the rice field owned by mam Nany Baguio located at
San Joaquin, Macrohon, Southern Leyte; that while they were on the
way to the rice field, they passed by the house of Estrella Vistar
located at San Joaquin, Macrohon, Southern Leyte; that Estrella
Vistar and Vicenta Navia were having a short conversation, then,
Estrella Vistar told Vicenta Navia that she was ordered by Saturnina
Mabitad to tell Vicenta Navia that she (Mabitad) wanted to send her
(Vicenta Navia) and mam Nany Baguio to jail; that when asked of the
7 Page Pp vs. Vicenta Navia Crim. Case No. R-6817 for Slight Oral Defamation

reason why, Saturnina Mabitad replied “AYAW NA PANGUTANA

NGANO, BASTA AKONG UTINGKAYON IJANG KINABUHI SA
DIHANG DIDTO PA SIJA SA MANILA, GIBIYAAN NA SIYA SA
IJANG BANA, AKO NA SIJANG IPAPRESO ADTO-A SIYA, SULTII”
(don’t anymore ask why, I will investigate and reveal her life while she
was still in Manila, she was left by her husband, I will send her to jail,
Go and tell her).

That he saw Vicenta Navia dialed her cellular phone and was
having a conversation with Saturnina Mabitad; that he heard their
conversation because the cellular phone of Vicenta Navia was put on
a loud speaker-mode and he heard Vicenta Navia saying “KINSA
MAN KA? UNYA NITUBAG IYANG KAISTORYA APO NI FELIMON
SAAVEDRA” UNJA NITUBAG SI VICENTA NAVIA PALIHOG SULTII
SI SATURNINA MABITAD IULI AND SOBRA.UNYA GI-OFF ANG
CELL PHONE” (Who are you? Then the person on the other line
answered, Grandson of Felimon Saavedra then Vicenta Navia
replied, Please tell Saturnina Mabitad to please return the excess,
then the phone was off); that after the conversation, instead of going
to the rice field, they return to their respective homes.
That after the defense presented its last two witnesses, they
rested its case and since the private prosecutor is contemplating to
present a rebuttal witness, they presented the private complainant
Saturnina Mabitad, 55 years old, married, housewife and a
resident of Brgy. Abgao, Maasin City, Southern Leyte as their first
rebuttal witness.
In her Judicial Affidavit dated and filed on 23 August 2019, she
refuted the testimonies of the accused and her witnesses Estrella
Vistar and Raul Esma on the following points; that it is not true that
Vicenta Navia got her phone number she called last November 16,
2015 as it is posted on her beach resort in San Joaquin, the truth is
that the contact numbers she posted were those of her two (2) mobile
phone so that she can be easily contracted even if she is out of the
house; that she did not place their landline number, but what Vicenta
Navia called on November 16, 2015 was their landline, because she
would no longer answer her mobile phones as the latter was rude to
her, calling her a land grabber and a fraudster; that the allegation on
witness Estrella Vistar, that she stopped working in her beach
because she wasn’t paid is also a lie as she caught Estrella Vistar,
not telling the correct amount paid by those who rented the resort.
That around May 2015, she and her cousin Ester Luz went to
the beach to go swimming; that she previously told Astring (Estrella
Vistar) to keep one cottage for them, because Astring said someone
was renting two (2) cottages there for overnight stay and the latter
give her P1,500.00 because according to her, the customer paid in
advance; that when she and Ester Luz arrived there, she was
8 Page Pp vs. Vicenta Navia Crim. Case No. R-6817 for Slight Oral Defamation

surprised that all three (3) cottages were being used; that when she
confronted Astring about it, the latter said it was Willie, her husband
who agreed with the customer; that because of that and as Astring
had done on several occasions, that was the time she already had
enough; that Astring came back for a short time around September
until November 2015; that she did not fire Astring and the latter also
did not tell her that she would no longer work at the beach resort and
the next thing she knew, Astring became a witness for Inta (Vicenta
Navia), so she hired another one to take care of the beach resort; that
the allegation of Raul Esma that Vicenta Navia called her only once
on November 16, 2015 saying her to return the excess land of
Ernanita Baguio is a mistake as Inta (Vicenta Navia) called twice, the
first time, she was the one who answered, then immediately passed
the phone to Pina Oreta, and the second time it was Erik (Frederick
Oreta) who answered because she refused to answer (the call).
After the conclusion of the testimony of the private complainant,
Saturnina Mabitad in rebuttal, the defense counsel manifested that
they are not offering any surrebuttal evidence, thus, the parties are
submitting this case for decision.

COURT’S RULING

SO ORDERED.

IN CHAMBER this 10th day of January 2020 at Maasin City,

Southern Leyte, Philippines.

EDGARDO C. LEONIDO
Judge

ECL/rbr
9 Page Pp vs. Vicenta Navia Crim. Case No. R-6817 for Slight Oral Defamation