Dati din akong palamura as expression. Nahulog ang baso, 'ay putangina'. Naiwan ka ng bus or hindi ka hinintuan ng jeep, 'putangina naman oh'. But as you work in a 'professional work area' sa Makati or any other business place, pagmumura is really unprofessional or immature. Then eventually, makakalimutan mo na din ang pagmumura. and actually, hindi magandang marinig ka ng anak mong palamura ka. at mas lalong hindi magandang marinig na yung anak mo eh, palamura din, ugaling nagaya sayo.
Pare 1: putang ina mo pre, ginagalit mo ako eh.
Pare 2: grave oral defamation yan, sasampahan kita ng kaso.
Well, actually sabi ng Supreme Court - putang ina mo is an expression of anger. Sa kasong may link sa ibaba ng blog post na ito, mayroong hindi pagkakaintindihan ang dalawang magkapitbahay at yung sumigaw ng pagmumura eh lasing pa. You see? Wala talagang nagagawang mabuti ang paglalasing eh. Yes, naririnig din ang pagmumura sa mga lasing na tao. Yung kaso sa supreme court about pagmumura, nahatulan yung lasing na nagmura ng kasong slight oral defamation na may multang P200. Oo, 200 pesos lang pero usapin itong nakarating sa Municipal Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals and eventually nakarating sa Supreme Court. In short, hassle pare.
Moral lesson:
Tigilan mo na ang pagmumura.
[G.R. No. 139157. February 8, 2000]
ROGELIO PADER, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/139157.htm
In Reyes vs. People,[14] we ruled that the expression “putang ina mo” is a common enough utterance in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slender but rather to express anger or displeasure. In fact, more often, it is just an expletive that punctuates one’s expression of profanity. We do not find it seriously insulting that after a previous incident involving his father, a drunk Rogelio Pader on seeing Atty. Escolango would utter words expressing anger. Obviously, the intention was to show his feelings of resentment and not necessarily to insult the latter. Being a candidate running for vice mayor, occasional gestures and words of disapproval or dislike of his person are not uncommon.
In similar fashion, the trial court erred in awarding moral damages without proof of suffering.[15] Accordingly, petitioner may be convicted only of slight oral defamation defined and penalized under Article 358, Revised Penal Code, prescribing the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
WHEREFORE, we resolve to DENY the petition. However, we set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA–G. R. CR No. 21710 and find petitioner Rogelio Pader guilty only of slight oral defamation. We impose on him a fine of P200.00 and costs.