Penalosa v. Ocampo
G.R. No. 230299
April 26, 2023
FACTS:
That on
August 3, 2011, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with malice, compose, prepare and
post for circulation and dissemination in her facebook account with intent to
impute upon the person of JOSE A. OCAMPO, JR. vices or defects, whether real or
imaginary, and made for no other purpose than to convey, as they did convey to
all those whoever read then that said JOSE A. OCAMPO, JR. is brainless,
disrespectful of his deceased father, lazy, a vagabond, a coward,
uncircumsized, a beggar and an envious person, thereby exposing him to public
ridicule, casting dishonor, discredit or contempt upon his person, to his
damage and prejudice.
Peñalosa filed another Motion to
Suspend Proceedings before the trial court due to the pendency of her Petition
for Review before the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice granted
Peñalosa's Petition for Review and ordered the City of Prosecutor to withdraw
the information filed before the trial Court. According to the Department of
Justice, when Peñalosa made the Facebook post complained of in 2011, there was
still no law penalizing "Internet Libel." Furthermore, merely
insulting words, such as those found in Peñalosa's Facebook post, are not
necessarily libelous. Acting on the Motion to Quash and Motion to Withdraw
Information, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued the Order declaring
Peñalosa's act constituted internet libel.
However, when the acts complained
of were committed on August 3, 2011, Republic Act No. 10175 was yet to be
enacted. Therefore, according to the trial court, Peñalosa's acts were NOT
criminally punishable when they were committed. Consequently, the trial court
dismissed the case against Peñalosa and declared the Motion to Quash and Motion
to Withdraw Information moot and academic. CA Ruling: Reversed the decision of
the RTC. According to the Court of Appeals, Peñalosa's act of maligning Ocampo,
Jr.'s reputation through a Facebook post was punishable under the libel
provisions of the Revised Penal Code, specifically, Article 355, which states
that libel shall be punishable "by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means."
ISSUE:
Whether
or not petitioner is extinguished from any liability on the ground of Nullum
Crimen, nulla poena sine lege.
HELD:
No. The
Court held that although when the offense charged was allegedly committed,
there is no law yet penalizing Internet Libel and following the a basic
doctrine in criminal law that there is no crime when there is no law punishing
it (Nullum Crimen, nulla poena sine lege). This Court's resolution of the
Petition will not leave respondent without recourse. Under Articles 19 to 21 of
the Civil Code, aggrieved parties may bring civil actions for damages "for
any harm inflicted upon them by defamatory falsehoods." More importantly,
in civil actions, the complainant has full control of the case, unlike in
criminal actions such as the present one, where the complainant has to defer to
the prosecution. "[The private complainant] must get the concurrence of
the public prosecutor as well as the court whenever he or she wants the complaint
to be dismissed." All told, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of Judge Capco-Umali in dismissing the criminal case for libel against the
petitioner. With the withdrawal of the information and the consequent dismissal
of the criminal case he had filed,respondent cannot insist on the criminal
prosecution of petitioner. He, however, still has the remedy of a civil action
for damages; should he opt to file one.
No comments:
Post a Comment