People vs.

Norma Hernandez

FACTS:

- Vivencio Lascano, and Maria Norma Hernandez have a boyfriend- girlfriend

relationship. The two talked about getting married.
- Vivencio’s parents went to the house of Norma to have a “pamamanhikan”. They
brought chickens and goats.
- The marriage was set on March 19, 1955. The preparation went on but on the day
of wedding, Norma is did not show up, causing Vivencio and his family great
same and humiliation.
- Norma Hernandez confessed that she was not really in love with him, and that she
accepted the proposal because she was convinced by her parents. That 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 should be convicted on the ground of serious slander by
deed

HELD: NO, SC reversed the RTC judgment and acquitted the appellant. 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 a marriage
without his or her free consent, and this would contravene the principle in law that
what could not be done directly could not be done indirectly; and said party has
the right to avoid to himself or herself the evil of going through a loveless
marriage pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

One of the essential requisites of slander hasn’t been proven. There is no malice
in the act of the appellant changing her mind. She was merely exercising her right
not to give her consent to the marriage after mature consideration. Furthermore,
there were no strained relations existing between the complainant & appellant
before the incident. There always existed good relations between them for they
were neighbors so it cannot be sustained that appellant was motivated by spite or
ill-will in deliberately frustrating the marriage. Appellant has the privilege to
reconsider her previous commitment to marry and it would be utterly inconsistent
to convict her for slander by deed simply because she desisted in continuing with
the marriage. If she would be liable then that would be tantamount to compelling
her to go into a marriage without her free consent. Appellant had the right to
avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless marriage. Justifying
Circumstances (Art. 11 par.4, RPC) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following
requisites are present; First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That
there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.