TITLE 13 CRIMES AGAINST HONOR CASE DIGESTS

Soriano v. People

G.R. 225010

November 21, 2018

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted the accused for the crime of 2 counts of libel. 1^st “That on or about July 31, 1998 at Iriga City, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused being then the anchorman of a religious radio program "Ang Dating Daan" of DZAL, a radio station in Iriga City with considerable coverage in the city and throughout Bicol Region, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and maliciously with intent to cause and expose to public ridicule, dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the persons comprising the Jesus Miracle Crusade, International Ministry (J[MC]IM), a religious group, publicly air in his said radio program his prepared taped broadcast containing false, injurious, and defamatory statements with no good intention or justifiable motive in the guise of preaching the gospel of the Lord by branding its leader as "BULAANG PROFETA, TARANTADO AND GAGO"; its pastors as "PASTOR NG DEMONYO, MGA PASTOR NA IMPAKTO and GAGO and its members as "ISANG DAKOT NA GAGO and SIRA ULO"  2^nd "That on or about July 31, 1998, between the hours of 7 :00 and 8:00 o'clock in the evening- at radio station DZAL, Iriga City, Philippines, its broadcast could reach the entire country, particularly Baao, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being then the anchorman of Radio Program "Ang Dating Daan" and, in a prepared tape, AIRED its radio program at the aforesaid radio station, with the deliberate purpose of impeaching, attacking and/or destroying the virtue, honesty, integrity and reputation of Evangelist Wilde E. Almeda, head of the Jesus Miracle Crusade International Ministry (JMCIM), and for the further purpose of exposing him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and maliciously aired and/or circulated the subject prepared tape, hereto attached as Annex "A", over the said radio station, containing false, malicious, injurious and highly defamatory statements against the said Evangelist Wilde E. Almeda, the pertinent portions/statements”

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in convicting the accused

HELD:

                Yes. Accused is acquitted on the 2^nd criminal complaint. Libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code is defined "as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead." "For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must be present: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable." 

                Malice Though religion is arguably a matter or subject of public interest, there is no standard by which We can declare petitioner's statements as fair commentaries. On their own, the words used by petitioner do not appear to debunk the purported falsities in the preachings of JMCIM but actually to degrade and insult their pastor or founder, Almeda. We likewise cite, with approval, the CA's finding of actual malice, to wit: Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. In the instant case, no good motive can be inferred from the language used by Soriano against private complainants. This Court can only see Soriano's apparent objective of discrediting and humiliating private complainants as to sow the seeds of JMCIM' s dissolution and to encourage membership in his religion.xx x. Publication "There is publication in this case. In libel, publication means making the defamatory matter, after it is written, known to someone other than the person against whom it has been written." "Libel is published not only when it is widely circulated, but also when it is made known or brought to the attention or notice of another person other than its author and the offended party."In this case, there is no doubt that the video footage of petitioner was published as it was broadcasted through petitioner's radio program. Identification While the Court affirms petitioner's guilt of libel, We deem it proper to clarify that petitioner's guilt stems from his statements. against pastor Almeda and not the JMCIM, or any of its pastors. We note that aside from mentioning Almeda's name, petitioner's statements did not refer to any specific pastor or member of the JMCIM. In MVRS Publications, Inc. et al v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Phils., Inc., the Court held: Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an identified or identifiable individual. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a particular member of a class, no member of such class has a right of action without at all impairing the equally demanding right of free speech and expression, as well as of the press, under the Bill of Rights.

 

Buatsi v. People

G.R. No. 142509

March 24, 2006

Facts

On August 18, 1995, the wife of private-complainant Atty. Jose J. Pieraz , retrieved a letter from their mailbox addressed to her husband. The letter was open, not contained in an envelope. In the letter Atty.  Pieraz was called stupid and his language as English carabao by the letter sender, Buatis Jr., and even put ‘Yours in Satan name’ and his signature on the closing part. Reacting to the insulting words used by Buatis, Jr., Atty. Pieraz filed a complaint for libel against accused-appellant. Subject letter and its contents came to the knowledge not only of his wife but of his children as well and they all chided him telling him: "Ginagawakalanggagodito."The defense forwarded by accused-appellant Buatis, Jr. was denial. According to him, it was at the behest of the president of the organization "NagkakaisangSamahan Ng MgaTagaManggahan" or NASATAMA, and of a member, TeresitaQuingco, that he had dictated to one of his secretaries, a comment to the letter of private-complainant in the second week of August 1995. Initially during his testimony, Buatis, Jr. could not recall whether he had signed that letter-comment or if it was even addressed to Atty. Pieraz. Neither could he remember if he had made and sent another letter, this time dated August 24, 1995, to Atty. Pieraz.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of libel.

HELD:

Yes. He is guilty of the crime of libel. Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable.

The last two elements have been duly established by the prosecution. There is publication in this case. In libel, publication means making the defamatory matter, after it is written, known to someone other than the person against whom it has been written. Petitioner’s subject letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all concerned. Also, petitioner had dictated the letter to his secretary. It is enough that the author of the libel complained of has communicated it to a third person. Furthermore, the letter, when found in the mailbox, was open, not contained in an envelope thus, open to public.

 

 

 

Tulfo v. People

G.R. 161032

September 16, 2008

FACTS:

                That on or about the 11th day of May, 1999 in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, being then the columnist, publisher and managing editor, respectively of "REMATE", a tabloid published daily and of general circulation in the Philippines, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with malicious intent to discredit or dishonor complainant, ATTY. CARLOS "DING" SO, and with the malicious intent of injuring and exposing said complainant to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, write and publish in the regular issue of said publication on May 11, 1999, its daily column "DIRECT HIT"

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in ignoring the unrebutted testimony of the appellant

HELD:

                No. The prosecution was able to present the testimonies of two other witnesses who identified Atty. So from Tulfo's articles. There is the certification that there is only one Atty. So in the Bureau of Customs. And most damning to Tulfo's case is the last column he wrote on the matter, referring to the libel suit against him by Atty. So of the Bureau of Customs. In this article, Tulfo launched further attacks against Atty. So, stating that the libel case was due to the exposs Tulfo had written on the corrupt acts committed by Atty. So in the Bureau of Customs. This last article is an admission on the part of Tulfo that Atty. So was in fact the target of his attacks. He cannot now point to a putative "Atty. Ding So" at South Harbor, or someone else using the name of Atty. So as the real subject of his attacks, when he did not investigate the existence or non-existence of an Atty. So at South Harbor, nor investigate the alleged corrupt acts of Atty. So of the Bureau of Customs. Tulfo cannot say that there is doubt as to the identity of the Atty. So referred to in his articles, when all the evidence points to one Atty. So, the complainant in the present case.

 

 

Belen v. People

G.R. 211120

February 13, 2017

Facts:

On March 12, 2004, petitioner, then a practicing lawyer and now a former Judge, filed a criminal complaint for estafa against his uncle, Nezer D. Belen, Sr. before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of San Pablo City, which was assigned to then Assistant City Prosecutor Ma. Victoria Sufiega-Lagman for preliminary investigation. With the submission of the parties and their respective witnesses' affidavits, the case was submitted for resolution. In order to afford himself the opportunity to fully present his cause, petitioner requested for a clarificatory hearing. Without acting on the request, Lagman dismissed petitioner's complaint in a Resolution dated July 28, 2004. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion (for Reconsideration & Disqualify), the contents of which later became the subject of this libel case. Petitioner furnished copies of the Omnibus Motion to Nezer and the Office of the Secretary of Justice, Manila. The copy of the Omnibus Motion contained in a sealed envelope and addressed to the Office of the City Prosecutor of San Pablo City was received by its Receiving Section on August 27, 2004. As a matter of procedure, motions filed with the said office are first received and recorded at the receiving section, then forwarded to the records section before referral to the City Prosecutor for assignment to the handling Investigating Prosecutor.

ACP Suñega-Lagman first learned of the existence of the Omnibus Motion from Michael Belen, the son of Nezer who is the respondent in the estafa complaint. She was also informed about the motion by Joey Flores, one of the staff of the OCP of San Pablo City. She then asked the receiving section for a copy of the said motion, and requested a photocopy of it for her own reference.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the element of publication is absent and that petitioner cannot be found is guilty of libel.

HELD:

No. Publication in libel means making the defamatory matter, after it has been written, known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written. A communication of the defamatory matter to the person defamed alone cannot injure his reputation though it may wound his self-esteem, for a man's reputation is not the good opinion he has of himself, but the estimation in which other hold him. In the same vein, a defamatory letter contained in a closed envelope addressed to another constitutes sufficient publication if the offender parted with its possession in such a way that it can be read by person other than the offended party. If a sender of a libelous communication knows or has good reasons to believe that it will be intercepted before reaching the person defamed, there is sufficient publication. The publication of a libel, however, should not be presumed from the fact that the immediate control thereof is parted with unless it appears that there is reasonable probability that it is hereby exposed to be read or seen by third persons.

In claiming that he did not intend to expose the Omnibus Motion to third persons, but only complied with the law on how service and filing of pleadings should be done, petitioner conceded that the defamatory statements in it were made known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written. Despite the fact that the motion was contained in sealed envelopes, it is not unreasonable to expect that persons other than the one defamed would be able to read the defamatory statements in it, precisely because they were filed with the OCP of San Pablo City and copy furnished to Nezer, the respondent in the estafa complaint, and the Office of the Secretary of Justice in Manila. Then being a lawyer, petitioner is well aware that such motion is not a mere private communication, but forms part of public record when filed with the government office. Inasmuch as one is disputably presumed to intend the natural and probable consequence of his act, petitioner cannot brush aside the logical outcome of the filing and service of his Omnibus Motion. It is not amiss to state that generally, the requirement of publication of defamatory matters is not satisfied by a communication of such matters to an agent of the defamed person. In this case, however, the defamatory statement was published when copy of the Omnibus Motion was furnished to and read by Michael, the son and representative of respondent Nezer in the estafa complaint, who is clearly not an agent of the defamed person, ACP Suñega-Lagman. Petitioner then argues that there is no publication as to Flores and Enseo, the staff of the OCP of San Pablo City, who had read the contents of the Omnibus Motion. In support thereof, he cites the settled rule that "when a public officer, in the discharge of his or her official duties, sends a communication to another officer or to a body of officers, who have a duty to perform with respect to the subject matter of the communication, such communication does not amount to publication."Petitioner's argument is untenable. As mere members of the administrative staff of the OCP of San Pablo City, Flores and Enseo cannot be said to have a duty to perform with respect to the subject matter of his motion, which is to seek reconsideration of the dismissal of his Estafa complaint and to disqualify ACP Suñega-Lagman from the preliminary investigation of the case. Their legal duty pertains only to the clerical procedure of transmitting the motions filed with the OCP of San Pablo City to the proper recipients.