1053, 1068 (1996), the Court modified the penalty imposed upon petitioner, an officer of a homeowners’ affiliation, for the crime of libel from imprisonment and advantageous in the amount of P200.00, to fantastic solely of P3,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, for the reason that he wrote the libelous article merely to defend his honor in opposition to the malicious messages that earlier circulated across the subdivision, which he thought was the handiwork of the personal complainant. Aggrieved by the aforequoted article, the private complainant initiated the necessary complaint against the petitioner, and công ty xây nhà trọn gói sóc trăng on May 25, 1984, an Information was filed before the trial court charging the petitioner with libel. On January 7, 1992, complainant filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur a criminal complaint in opposition to petitioner for slander by deed. In rejecting the aforesaid argument, the Court held that although as a rule, it is the best and duty of a citizen to make a complaint of any misconduct on the pant of public officials, which involves his notice, to these charged with supervision over them, "such complaints must be addressed solely to some official having jurisdiction to inquire into the costs, or energy to redress the grievance or has some obligation to perform or interest in connection therewith." In the instant case, none of the homeowners for whom the newsletter was published was vested with the facility of supervision over the private complainant or the authority to research the charges made in opposition to the latter. Post has been created by Công ty xây dựng-online.de">version.

However, when he returned the same three days later, complainant observed that a number of papers were lacking which included official communications from the Civil Service Commission and Regional Office, Department of Agriculture, and a replica of the complaint by the Rural Bank of Digos in opposition to petitioner. After trial, on September 22, 1994, the Municipal Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur rendered resolution discovering the accused guilty of the offense charged and sentenced the accused to 5 (5) months and eleven (11) days to 2 (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days and to pay private complainant the quantity of Five THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS as ethical damages, Five THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS attorney’s charges and to reimburse her the price of suit. The principal is the amount of money borrowed to buy a home. On December 6, 1991, petitioner borrowed from complainant the information of his 201 file. Upon instruction of her superior officer, Honorio Lumain, complainant despatched a memorandum to petitioner asking him to elucidate why his 201 file was returned with lacking documents.

The circumstances beneath which the subject article was published by the petitioner buttressed the inference that petitioner was animated solely by revenge in the direction of the personal complainant on account of the leaflet entitled "Supalpal si Sazon,’ earlier circulated among the homeowners as properly as the writings near the entrance gate of the subdivision, all of which petitioner believed to be the handiwork of the non-public complainant. The existence of malice actually could also be "shown by extrinsic proof that the defendant bore a grudge in opposition to the offended party, or that there was rivalry or ailing-feeling between them which existed at the date of the publication of the defamatory imputation or that the defendant had an intention to injure the reputation of the offended get together as proven by the phrases used and the circumstances attending the publication of the defamatory imputation". The Court acknowledged that the general rule laid down in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code offers that "every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even when or not it's true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it's proven ". " was seen boldly written on the partitions close to the entrance gate of the subdivision.

Meanwhile, in response to the election protest, the EMO-HFC ordered the PML-BLCA to conduct a referendum to be supervised by the EMO-HFC. The non-public complainant lost in said election. The facts of the case showed that complainant Norma Capintoy and petitioner Quirico Mari were co-employees within the Department of Agriculture, with office at Digos, Davao del Sur, although complainant occupied a better position. The Supreme Court found the petitioner responsible past affordable doubt of serious slander by deed outlined underneath Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code but as an alternative sentenced him to pay a wonderful of P1,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. It thus affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals "with the modification that, in lieu of imprisonment and advantageous, the penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner shall be a tremendous of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) PESOS with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency". On June 19, 1995, the appellate courtroom dismissed the appeal and affirmed the choice of the trial court. In due time, petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court. This was definitely indicative of malice the truth is on the part of the petitioner.