SECOND DIVISION
|
TONY N.
FIGUEROA and ROGELIO J. FLAVIANO, Petitioners, - versus - THE PEOPLE
OF THE Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 159813
Present: PUNO, J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: August 9, 2006 |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Assailed and sought to be set aside in this petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the Decision[1] dated October 11, 2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 17235, affirming in toto an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Davao City, Branch 17, which found herein petitioners guilty of the crime of
libel.
The antecedent facts:
On March 24, 1992, in the RTC of Davao City, the city
prosecutor of Davao, at the instance of one Aproniano Rivera, filed an Information[2] for libel under Article 355 in relation to
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code against the herein petitioners, Tony N.
Figueroa and Rogelio J. Flaviano. Docketed in the same court as Criminal Case No. 25,957-92
and raffled to Branch 17 thereof, the Information alleges as follows:
That on or about
“Bangkerohan public market these days is no different
from the US Times Square. Bullies, thugs, hooligans and gyppers roam with
impunity, some using organizational clout as a ploy to keep themselves from
obvious exposure. Some leeches, like a certain Aproniano “Rey” Rivera, our
sources say, are lording it over like the city's
sprawling vegetable and meat complex has become an apportioned bailiwick.
“Rivera, apparently a non-Visayan pseudobully flaunting
with his tag as president of a vendor's federation, has intimated a good number
of lowly hawkers. This is a confirmed fact, our sources believe. And our
independent eveasdroppers [sic] have come with a similar perception of a man
who continues to lead a federation when, in the first place, he has no business
being in
“Often, Mr. “Re” (King?) Rivera strolls the stretches
which criss-cross the Bankerohan confines with the arrogance of a tribal
chieftain; the only differences, however, are that: he uses no G-strings,
speaks in some strange
“This man, the sources add, is backed by powerful city
government hooligans who, it was reported, have direct hand in the planned
manipulation in the distribution of stalls to privileged applicants. Even if he
has reportedly sold his interest in the public market, which should be reason
enough for him to resign from his position, Rivera still carries the false aura
of intimidating poor vendors and imposing his insensible remarks about what
must be done about the governance of Bangkerohan.
“Sometimes its hard to compel a man
with Rivera's mind about the nuances of honorable resignation. May iba d'yan na pakapalan na lang ng mukha!”
xxx xxx xxx
“Rivera, however, must be consoled in knowing he's not
alone with his dirty antics. Romy Miclat, a president of a meat vendors group
in Bankerohan, and his board member, Erning Garcia, have tacitly followed the
way of the thugs, floating little fibs to gullible victims. Our moles have
gathered the due are seeling [sic] the new public market stalls for P9,000 with the assurances that the buyer gets a display area
ordinarily occupied by two applicants. A lot more have fallen prey to the
scheme, and more the blindly swallowing all the books the two are peddling.
“This dilemma has been there for so long, but the city
hall, RCDP, and the city council have continuously evaded the vicious cabal of
men out to derail the raffling of the stalls to applicants. Some believe
strongly this is odd, but they can only whimper at their helplessness against
power-brokers who have taken over the dominance of Bangkerohan. One of the
likely victims in this filthy machination are the
sinapo vendors who have become explosively furious over the snafu they are
facing because of the manipulation of stalls inside Bangkerohan.
“Insiders continuo[u]sly tell of
woeful tales about how they have been given runarounds by many so-called public
servants, but they have maintained their composures quite curiously. They are
talking, however, of anger which, our sources [s]ay,
may end up with a bloody retaliation. This probability is looming more lucid
every day the officials handling the Bangkerohan stall mess are condoning their
plight. Even politicos are oddly silent about the whole controversy for some
unknown reasons. It looks like the alleged schemes perpetrated by Rivera,
Miclat and Garcia will remain unperturbed, no thanks to power-brokers.”
which newspaper was read by the people
throughout
Contrary to law.
On arraignment, petitioners as accused, assisted by counsel, entered a common plea of “Not Guilty.” Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued.
On
WHEREFORE, finding the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to prove
the guilt of both accused, Tony Figueroa and Rogelio Flaviano, columnist and
publisher-editor, respectively of the People's Daily Forum, of the offense
charged, beyond reasonable doubt; their evidence adduced is not sufficient to
afford their exoneration, pursuant to Art. 355 in relation to
Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code, without any mitigating ot [sic]
aggravating circumstances, proved in the commission of the offense charged,
imposing the indeterminate sentence law, both accused are hereby sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of five months and one day of
arresto mayor maximum as minimum penalty, to two years four months and 31 days
of prision correccional minimum as maximum penalty with accessory penalty as
provided for by law.
Moreover, pursuant to Art. 100 in relation to Art. 104 of the Revised Penal Code,
governing civil indemnity, both accused are ordered to pay jointly and
solidarily the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages to complainant, Aproniano
Rivera and the amount of P10,000.00 by way of attorney's fees with costs.
Without any aggravating circumstances proved by the
prosecution, in the commission of the offense charged exemplary damages against
both accused, cannot be awarded. x x x
SO ORDERED.
From the trial court’s judgment of conviction, petitioners
went to the CA whereat their appellate recourse was
docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 17235.
As
stated at the threshold hereof, the CA, in
the herein assailed Decision[4] dated
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED
in all respects.
SO ORDERED.
Undaunted, petitioners are now with
this Court via this petition for review on their
submissions that the CA erred -
1.
IN HOLDING
THAT THE COLUMN ENTITLED “FOOTPRINTS” OF THE PEOPLE’S DAILY FORUM IS LIBELOUS OR DEFAMATORY TO
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT APRONIANO RIVERA;
2.
IN HOLDING
THAT PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IS
NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER, HENCE THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION;
3. IN UPHOLDING THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.
The petition lacks merit.
In
praying for their
acquittal, petitioners
attempt to pass off the subject published article as one that portrays the condition of the Bankerohan Public Market in general. Citing Jimenez v. Reyes,[5] they challenge the finding
of the two courts below on the libelous or defamatory nature of
the same article which, to them, must be read and construed in its entirety. It is their posture that the article was not directed at
the private character of complainant Aproniano Rivera but on the sorry state of affairs at the Bankerohan Public Market.
Petitioners’
posture cannot save the day for them.
Our own reading of the
entire text of the published article convinces us of its libelous or defamatory character.
While it is true that a publication's libelous nature depends on its scope,
spirit and motive taken in their entirety,
the article in question
as a whole explicitly
makes mention of private complainant Rivera all throughout. It cannot be said
that the article was a mere general commentary on the alleged existing state of affairs at the aforementioned public
market because Rivera
was not only specifically pointed out several times therein but was even tagged with derogatory names. Indubitably, this
name-calling was, as correctly found by the two courts
below, directed at the very person
of Rivera himself.
If, as argued, the published article was indeed merely intended to innocently present the current condition of the Bankerohan Public Market, there would then be no place in the article for
the needless name-calling which it is wrought full of. It is beyond
comprehension how calling Rivera a “leech,” “a paper tiger,” a “non-Visayan pseudobully” with the “arrogance of a tribal chieftain” save for his speaking in “some strange Luzon
lingo and twang” and
who “has no business being in Davao or Bankerohan” can ever be regarded or viewed as
comments free of malice. As
it is, the tag and
description thus given Rivera
have no place in a
general account of the situation in the
public market, and cannot, by any stretch of
the imagination, be construed to be anything other than what they really are: defamatory and
libelous in nature, and definitely directed at the private character of
complainant Rivera. For indeed, no logical connection can
possibly be made between Rivera's
Article
353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as follows:
Art. 353. Definition
of libel. - A libel is a
public and malicious imputation of a crime, or 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.
Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means injuring a person's character,
fame or reputation through false and malicious statements. It is that which
tends to injure reputation or to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in the complainant or to excite
derogatory feelings or opinions about him.
It is the publication of anything which is injurious to the good name or
reputation of another or tends to bring him into disrepute.[6]
In the light of the numerable defamatory imputations made against
complainant Rivera as a person, the article in dispute, even taken, as urged,
in its totality, undeniably caused serious damage to his character and person
and clearly injurious to his reputation.
At
any rate, in libel cases, the question is not what the writer of the libelous material means, but what the words used by
him mean.[7] Here, the defamatory character of
the words used by the petitioners is
shown by the very recitals thereof in the questioned article.
It is next contended by the
petitioners that Rivera
is a public officer. On this premise, they invoke in their favor the application of one of the
exceptions to the legal presumption of the malicious nature of every defamatory
imputation, as provided
for under paragraph (2), Article 354 of the Revised Penal
Code, to wit:
Art. 354. Requirement
for publicity. - Every
defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no
good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the
following cases:
xxx xxx xxx
2.
A fair and
true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of
confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise
of their functions.
Again, as correctly found by both the trial court and the CA, Rivera is not a public officer or
employee but a private citizen. Hence, the published article cannot be
considered as falling within the ambit of privileged
communication within the context of the above-quoted provision of the Penal
Code.
A
public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law,
by which an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions
of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The
individual so invested is a public officer. The most important characteristic
which distinguishes an office from an employment or contract is that the
creation and conferring
of an office involve a
delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of government,
to be exercised by him
for the benefit of the public; that some portion of the sovereignty of the country, either
legislative, executive or judicial, attaches, to be exercised for the public
benefit. Unless the powers conferred are of this nature, the individual is not
a public officer.[8]
Clearly,
Rivera cannot be
considered a public officer. Being a member of the market committee did not
vest upon him any sovereign function of the government, be it legislative,
executive or judicial. As reasoned out by the CA, the operation of a public
market is not a governmental function but merely an activity undertaken by the
city in its private proprietary capacity. Furthermore, Rivera's membership in
the market committee was in representation of the association of market
vendors, a non-governmental organization belonging to the private sector.
Indeed,
even if we were to pretend that Rivera was a public officer, which he clearly is not, the subject article still
would not pass muster as Article 354(2), supra, of the Revised Penal Code expressly requires that it be a
“fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks.” Even a mere cursory glance at the
article reveals that it is far from being that.
Finally, petitioners assail the
award by the two courts
below of moral damages
and attorney's fees in
favor of Rivera.
The
assault must fail. Article
2219(7) of the Civil Code is express in stating that moral damages may be
recovered in case of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. From the
very publication and circulation of the subject defamatory and libelous material
itself, there can be no doubt as to the resulting wounded feelings and
besmirched reputation sustained
by complainant Rivera. The branding of defamatory names against him most certainly exposed him to public
contempt and ridicule.
As found by the trial court in its judgment of conviction:
Complainant,
when he read the subject publication, was embarrass on what was written against
him, made more unpleasant on the occasion of the reunion of his son-in-law, who
just arrived from the United States for the first time, was confronted of the
above-defamatory publication. He was worried and depressed, about the comments
against him, affecting his credibility and personality, as representative of
many market organizations in
Having been exposed to embarrassment
and ridicule occasioned
by the publication of the subject article, Rivera is entitled to moral damages and attorney's fees.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is
DENIED and the assailed CA Decision dated
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
A
T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
Mariano M. Umali, with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador concurring, Rollo, pp. 39-62.
[2] Rollo, pp. 68-70.
[3] Rollo, pp. 71-88.
[4] Supra note 1.
[5] 27 Phil 52
(1914).
[6] MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003, 396 SCRA 210, 218-219.
[7] Sazon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120715, March 29, 1996, 255 SCRA 692, 698.
[8] Laurel v. Desierto, G.R. No.
145368,