Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
DOLORES MAGNO, G.R.
No. 133896
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
J.,
Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- versus -
AZCUNA and
GARCIA,
JJ.
PEOPLE OF THE
Respondent.
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Petitioner Dolores Magno appeals from the
Records yield the following pertinent facts:
For around twenty (20) years, petitioner Dolores Magno
(Dolores) and Cerelito T. Alejandro (Cerelito) have been neighbors at
In the afternoon of March 2, 1991, Cerelito, while at the
upper portion of his house, saw Dolores write on the wall at the back of her
garage the following words: “Huag Burahin Bawal Dumaan Dito ang Maniac at
Magnanakaw ng Aso katulad ni Cere Lito O. Cedring.”
Feeling that he was the “Cere”, “Lito” or “Cedring”
being alluded to, Cerelito reported the
matter to the local police and filed an affidavit-complaint with the Fiscal’s
Office.
Subsequently, or on
Again, feeling that he was the maniac and dog thief being referred
to, Cerelito lost no time in filing a complaint with the Baguio City Police (BCP).
Pictures were then taken of the aforesaid writing on the wall.[5] Eventually, the Office of the
City Prosecutor in Baguio, finding, following an investigation, probable cause for libel against Dolores, filed
the corresponding information giving rise to Criminal Case No. 8804-R.
Evidently apprised by the police of the complaint thus
filed by Cerelito, Dolores repaired in the morning of
At around
The first letter, unsigned and undated[8]
and written on yellow pad, was addressed to spouses Cerelito and Fe Alejandro. Quoted, in part, in the information in
Criminal Case No. 8806-R, this unsigned letter reads:
If
your husband can't show any proof of his makating dila then comply & if
your husband can't understand this simple English dahil mangmang, dayukdok na
galing sa isang kahig isang tukang pamilya at walang pinagaralan, illiterate, mal
educado kaya bastos eh huag na niya kaming idamay sa kaniyang katangahan na
alam na trabaho eh humawak ng grasa sa Saudi.
Kaya iyong pambabastos mo at pagdudumi niya sa pangalan naming at higit
pa siyang marumi at putang ina rin niya.
Galing siya sa p… ng baboy at hindi sa p… ng tao. Huag niyang ikumpara ang pinangalingan niya
sa pinangalingan namin. Siya ang magnanakaw at mandaraya. Malinaw na ibidensiya iyan kinalagyan ng
hagdan ninyo, di ba lampas kayo sa lote ninyo.
Pinalakad ninyo ang mojon para lumaki ang lote
ninyo. Bago kayo magsalita mambintang ng kapitbahay ninyo, tignan ninyo
muna ang sarili ninyo. Mas mukha pang magnanakaw ang asawa mo para
malinaw.
The second letter is a photo-copy of the
first, but with the following addendum written in ink at the back page thereof
which reads:
Ang tibay mo rin naman Mrs. Alejandro, makapal pa ang mukha mo at ikaw pa ang magpapablotter sa akin para pagtakpan mo ang maniac mong asawa. Kailan mo masasabi na pumasok sa bakuran mo para mamirhuesyo sa inyo. Tanga.
The third letter, a photo-copy of Dolores’ signed letter[9]
dated
The
Sub Station Commander
Sub-Station
5
Dear
sir:
xxx xxx xxx
Allow
me then to explain to you . . . why I call Mr. Alejandro a maniac. Pumasok siya sa lote ko
sa garahe na naging shelter
(temporary) namin ng pamilya ko
pagkatapos ng lindol (3
weeks after) ng hatinggabi-lasing na lasing nakapaa, bukas ang zipper ng pantaloon nakayapak
na walang sapin sa paa. Tulog na kami. We were
awakened by the constant barking of my dogs.
I have 3 native dogs but 1 was slaughtered by Mr. Cerelito Alejandro …. He is even a dog-napper.
My Manang Louie can relate the incident since we were
out of the country x x x. I don't trust him as my kapitbahay
na bantay salakay. In simple tagalog magnanakaw ng aso para may malamon dahil takaw na takaw at walang maibili.
It is upon the foregoing factual backdrop that Dolores was
charged with libel under four (4) separate informations filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Baguio City, docketed as Criminal
Cases No. 8803-R, 8804-R, 8805-R and 8806-R and raffled to Branch 6 of the court.
The information in Criminal Case No. 8803-R was based on
Dolores’ letter dated March 15, 1991[10] to the BCP Sub-station Commander
explaining why she called Cerelito a “maniac,” whereas the information in
Criminal Case No. 8805-R arose out of the following statement written by
Dolores on March 2, 1991 at the back of her garage wall, viz. “… Bawal Dumaan ang Maniac at Magnanakaw ng aso katulad ni Cerelito O. Cedring...”
The accusatory portion of the information in Criminal Case No. 8804-R reads in full as follows:
That
on or about the 9th day of March, 1991, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, the
above-named accused [Dolores Magno], with deliberate and malicious intent and
evil motive of impeaching the reputation, virtue and integrity of CER[E]LITO T.
ALEJANDRO, . . ., and with malicious intent of exposing the said Cerelito
Alejandro to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, discredit and dishonor, without
any justifiable motive, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously and criminally paint with brush in bold letters at the wall of the
extension of her garage, the following defamatory words: “'HUAG BURAHIN BAWAL
DUMAAN ANG SUSPETSOSA BASTOS AT MAKAPAL ANG MUKHA DITO LALO NA SA MANIAC AT
MAGNANAKAW NG ASO KATULAD NI CERELITO", which aforesaid defamatory,
malicious and libelous statements have been read by the public, when in truth
and in fact said accused well knew that the allegations are false, untrue and
malicious, thereby causing dishonor, discredit, ridicule or contempt against
the said Cerelito Alejandro, to his damage and prejudice.
On the other
hand, the information in Criminal Case No. 8806-R reads:
That
on or about the 15th day of March, 1991, in the City of Baguio, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
with deliberate and malicious intent and evil motive of impeaching the
reputation, virtue and integrity of CERELITO T. ALEJANDRO, a person of good
standing in the community, and with malicious intent of exposing the said
Cerelito Alejandro to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, discredit and
dishonor, without any justifiable motive, did then and there willfully and
criminally prepare and write a letter in yellow pad paper addressed to herein
complainant and his wife, Fe Alejandro, in an unsealed envelope, the following
statements:
"IF
YOUR HUSBAND CAN'T SHOW ANY PROOF OF HIS MAKATING DILA THEN COMPLY & IF
YOUR HUSBAND CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE ENGLISH DAHIL MANGMANG, DAYUKDOK NGA
GALING SA ISANG KAHIG ISANG TUKANG PAMILYA AT WALANG PINAG-ARALAN, ILLITERATE,
MAL EDUCADO KAYA BASTOS EH HUAG NA NIYA KAMING IDAMAY SA KANIYANG KATANGAHAN NA
ALAM NA TRABAHO E HUMAWAK NG GRASA SA SAUDI.
KAYA IYONG PAMBABASTOS MO AT PAGDUDUMI NIYA SA PANGALAN NAMIN AT HIGIT
PA SIYANG MARUMI AT PUTANG INA RIN NIYA.
GALING SIYA SA PUKI NG BABOY AT HINDI PUKI NG TAO, HUAG IKUMPARA ANG
PINANGALINGAN NAMIN. SIYA ANG MAGNANAKAW
AT MANDARAYA. MALINAW NA IBIDENSIYA IYAN
KINALALAGYAN NG HAGDAN NINYO, DI BA LAMPAS KAYO SA LOTE NINYO. PINALAKAD NINYO ANG MOJON
which
aforesaid defamatory, malicious and libelous words and statements have been
read by the public, when in truth and in fact said accused well knew that the
allegations are false, untrue and malicious, thereby causing dishonor,
discredit, ridicule or contempt against the said Cerelito T. Alejandro, to his
damage and prejudice.
Upon arraignment, Dolores,
as accused, entered a plea of “Not Guilty” to each of the offenses charged in
the four informations aforecited.[11]
Following a joint trial, the trial court
rendered judgment on
WHEREFORE,
Judgment is rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 8803-R, the Court Finds
that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable
doubt and hereby Acquits Dolores Magno of the offense of Libel as charged. Costs de oficio.
The
bond of the accused in Criminal Case No. 8803-R is cancelled and discharged.
2. In Criminal Case No. 8804-R, the Court Finds
accused
Dolores Magno Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Libel as charged
and hereby sentences her to an imprisonment ranging from 3 months and 11 days of
Arresto Mayor as Minimum to 1 year 8 months and 21 days of Prision Correccional
as Maximum; to indemnify the offended party Cerelito Alejandro the sum of
P5,000.00 as Moral Damages and the costs of suit.
3. In Criminal Case No. 8805-R, the Court Finds
that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable
doubt and hereby Acquits Dolores Magno of the offense of Libel as charged. Costs de oficio.
The
bond of accused Dolores Magno in Criminal Case No. 8805-R is cancelled and
discharged.
4. In Criminal Case No. 8806-R, the Court Finds
accused Dolores Magno Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Libel as
charged and hereby sentences her to an imprisonment ranging from 3 months and
11 days of Arresto Mayor as Minimum to 1 year 8 months and 21 days of Prision
Correccional as Maximum; to indemnify
the offended party Cerelito Alejandro the sum of P5,000.00 as Moral Damages and
the costs of suit.
SO
ORDERED.
Dissatisfied, Dolores went on appeal to the CA. In its Decision dated
Hence, this appeal by Dolores via the instant petition for review.
Dolores urges her acquittal contending that her conviction
for libel in Criminal Case No. 8804-R is predicated on what she
considers as the incredible testimony of the prosecution’s principal witness,
Rodelito Alejandro. She claims that it
is extremely difficult to believe that Rodelito, after seeing the libelous
writings on the wall at the back of her garage, would proceed to buy bread
instead of reporting immediately to his father. In Dolores’ own words: “In the natural order of things, or in the
natural course of events, a son in the place of Rodelito would have gone home
first to report the incident to his father, instead of going some place to buy
bread.”[15] Pressing on, she alleges that father and son
could not even agree as to the whereabouts of the former in the afternoon of
March 9, 1991, noting that, while Cerelito testified being at their house at
that time, Rodelito said his father was not at the house the whole day.[16]
Shifting to another point, Dolores states that the prosecution
failed to establish the presence of the elements of authorship and publication of
the malicious writings on the wall, as well as the unsigned letter addressed to
the spouses Alejandro, referring to Exhibit “F-1”.[17]
The appeal is
without merit
The familiar and well-entrenched doctrine is that the assessment
of the credibility of witnesses lies within the area and competence of the trier
of facts, in this case, the trial court and, to a certain extent, the CA. This doctrine is based on the time-honored rule
that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is
best and most commonly performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate
magistrates, is in the best position to
assess the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before his sala as he had
personally heard them and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial.[18]
Succinctly put, findings of fact of the trial court pertaining to the
credibility of witnesses command great weight and respect since it had the
opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and attitude and is therefore
placed in a more competent position to discriminate between truth and
falsehood.[19]
Verily, the Court finds no reason to doubt the
identification by Rodelito of Dolores as the person who wrote on her garage’s
extension wall the libelous writing “ . . . Maniac at Magnanakaw ng Aso Katulad
ni Cerelito.” The fact that Rodelito, upon witnessing this particular incident,
proceeded to buy bread instead of immediately informing his father of what
occurred, does not, without more, vitiate the former’s credibility a bit nor
diminish the probabilities of the situation testified upon . As aptly observed
by the Court of Appeals:
Anent
the first argument, it is not at all improbable for Rodelito to proceed to buy
bread first before telling his father of the incident. The fact that he did not immediately go home
and tell his father what he witnessed but instead proceeded first to the store
is not an unusual behavior for this Court to speculate or doubt witness'
credibility. As the records show, such
maligning of Cerelito's person in public was not the first time for the [petitioner]
had priorly (sic) made insulting writings on her garage wall. Thus, this second incident witnessed by
Rodelito was no longer a surprise for him which could have immediately prompt
(sic) him to report it to his father. (Word in bracket added.)
Of little moment, too, is the minor variance in the
respective testimonies of Rodelito and Cerelito on whether or not Cerelito was
at his house in the eventful afternoon of
Anent
the second and third arguments where [petitioner] faults Rodelito's testimony
as suffering from material inconsistencies, the same, if any, merely refers to
minor points which do not detract from the credibility of his testimony. What is relevant is the fact that Rodelito
saw the [petitioner] write the insulting writings and that he afterwards
informed his father about it.
Well-settled is the rule that inconsistencies and contradictions which
are minor, trivial and inconsequential cannot impair, and on the contrary,
serve to strengthen the credibility of the witness.[22] (Word in bracket added)
This brings us to Dolores’ conviction in Criminal Case No. 8806-R where she insists on the absence
of the element of publication so vital in the prosecution for libel. To be
liable for libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the following
elements must be shown to exist: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or
condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of
the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.[23]
There can be no quibbling about the defamatory nature of
the written imputation or allegations hurled against Cerelito. And the
derogatory writings were obviously made out of ill-will or revenge. The issue of defamation, malice or the
identity of the person defamed is not even raised in this recourse.
As earlier recited, the information in Criminal Case No.
8806-R arose out of what Dolores wrote about the spouses Cerelito
and Fe Alejandro contained in an unsealed envelope and delivered, through
Evelyn Arcartado, on
Publication, in the law of libel, means the making of the
defamatory matter, after it has been written, known to someone other than the
person to whom it has been written. If the statement is sent straight to a
person for whom it is written there is no publication of it.[26] The reason for this is that “a communication
of the defamatory matter to the person defamed cannot injure his reputation
though it may wound his self-esteem. A
man’s reputation is not the good opinion he has of himself, but the estimation in
which others hold him.”[27]
In People vs.
Silvela,[28]
the Court ruled that sending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended party
constitutes publication. In the present
case, there is no dispute that the unsealed envelope containing the libelous letter
was handed by Dolores to Evelyn Arcartado. Contextually, there was a reasonable
probability that the contents of the unsealed envelope, particularly the
libelous letter, could have been exposed to be read by Evelyn before delivering
the same to Cerelito. However, Evelyn categorically admitted not reading the
letter at the first instance, reading it only after securing Cerelito’s permission. An excerpt of her testimony:
Direct Examination:
FISCAL
CENTENO:
Did you
read the contents of the letter?
A Yes,
sir. I read it after my brother had read
it.
Q And what did
you find out?
A Damaging
words.[29]
CROSS
EXAMINATION
BY
ATTY. AGRANZAMENDEZ
Q On
Q And she handed
an envelope, is that correct. A. Yes,
sir.
Q And she told
you to give this envelope to your sister-in-law?
A Yes, sir.
Q And because her instruction to you was
to give the envelope to your sister-in-law, you did not open the envelope
yourself, correct?
A No, I did
not, sir.
Q But when you got to your house, your
sister-in-law was not there, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q And that is the reason why you gave it
instead to your brother, correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q Between the time that Mrs. Magno gave
you that envelope up to the time you gave it to your brother, you yourself did
not open it, correct. A. Yes, sir.[30]
RE-DIRECT
EXAMINATION
BY
FISCAL CENTENO
Q So, madame witness, all in all how many
documents were read by Cerelito Alejandro when you handed this envelope, Exhibit "F"?
A He read all the letters.
COURT:
(To witness)
Q How about you?
A I also read all the letters.
Q Are you saying that after your brother
read those letters you read them also? A. Yes, sir
.
Q Your brother
handed them to you?
A I asked
permission from him and he said, yes.
Q Does he
always allow you to read his private letters?
A This is the
only letter which he allowed me to read.[31]
Inasmuch, therefore,
as Cerelito voluntarily disclosed the contents of Dolores’ libelous letter to
Evelyn, the act of publication cannot be ascribed to Dolores insofar as Evelyn
is concerned. However, it could not be
said that there was no publication with respect to Cerelito’s wife, Fe. While
the letter in question was addressed to “Mr. Cerelito & Fe Alejandro,” the
invectives contained therein were directed against Cerelito only, as shown
below:
Mr. Cerelito
& Fe Alejandro
xxx xxx xxx
Reason: In retaliation and stupidity of Mr. Cerelito
Alejandro accusing us of being corrupt & magnanakaw in the Bu. Of Forestry
I am going to sue in due time for Oral Defamation & other moral damages,
stealing my dog para lamunin
nang asawa mo.
If
your husband can't show any proof of this makating dila then comply & if
your husband can't understand this simple English dahil mangmang, dayukdok na
galing sa isang kahig isang tukang pamilya at walang pinagaralan, illiterate,
mal educado kaya bastos eh huag na niya kaming idamay sa kaniyang katangahan na
alam na trabaho eh humawak ng grasa sa Saudi. Kaya iyong pambabastos mo at pagdudumi niya
sa pangalan naming at higit
pa siyang marumi at putang ina rin
niya. Galing siya
sa puki ng baboy at hindi sa puki ng tao. Huag niyang ikumpara ang pinangalingan niya sa pinangalingan namin. Siya ang magnanakaw at mandaraya. Malinaw na ibidensiya iyan kinalagyan ng hagdan ninyo, di ba
lampas kayo sa lote ninyo. Pinalakad ninyo ang mojon para lumaki ang lote
ninyo. Bago kayo magsalita mambintang ng kapitbahay ninyo, tignan ninyo
muna ang sarili ninyo. Mas mukha pang magnanakaw ang asawa mo para
malinaw.
Writing to a person other than the person defamed is
sufficient to constitute publication, for the person to whom the letter is
addressed is a third person in relation to its writer and the person defamed
therein.[32] Fe, the wife, is, in context, a third person
to whom the publication was made.
Finally, the Court cannot give credence to Dolores’
allegation that she is not the author of
the unsigned libelous letter. It cannot be overstressed that she herself handed
the unsigned letter to Evelyn Arcartado with specific
instructions to give the same to Fe Alejandro.
Likewise, the contents of the letters are basically reiteration/elaborations of Dolores’ previous
writing on the wall and her letter to the BCP Sub-Station commander. What the Court
of Appeals said on this point is basic common sense and deserving of
acceptance:
Anent
the second assigned error, [petitioner] contends authorship of the unsigned
letters was not
proven. This contention is bereft of
merit. As keenly observed
by the Solicitor
General, said letters
were positively identified as written
by [petitioner] by reference to the contents thereof which are reiterations of
her previous writings on the walls of her garage and her letter to the
police. Moreover, the testimony of
Evelyn that said unsealed envelope came from the [petitioner] remain
unrebutted. Therefore, it appears that
there would be no other conclusion except that [petitioner] was the author of
the subject letter. (Words in bracket added.)
In all, we find all the elements of libel to have been
sufficiently established. Accordingly,
the ascription of reversible errors on the part of the CA and the trial court
in adjudging Dolores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of libel
cannot be sustained.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
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 Chairman'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