Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
RAMIL P. ORTIZ, G.R. NO. 157370
Petitioner,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
and
NACHURA,
JJ.
COURT
OF APPEALS,
THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY
PROSECUTOR
OF
and
BENEDICTO S. CAJUCOM, Promulgated:
Respondents. June 8, 2007
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
This
resolves the petition for certiorari and/or prohibition with prayer for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking the
nullification of the Resolution[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
The antecedent facts are as follows.
A complaint for libel was filed by
private respondent Benedicto S. Cajucom
(Cajucom) against Ramil P.
Ortiz (petitioner). Cajucom
indicated therein his postal address as 3863
The undersigned accused RAMIL PIAMONTE ORTIZ of the crime of libel, committed as follows:
That on or about
December 8, 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with
malicious purpose of impeaching the virtue, honor, character and reputation of
BENEDICTO A. CAJUCOM VII, a lawyer, then residing at this City, formerly
employed as Vice President for Legal Affairs, TPI Philippine Vinyl Corporation,
TPI Philippine Cement Corporation and Thun Tritasavit, and with evident intent of exposing him to
public hatred, contempt and ridicule, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, feloniously and maliciously write, publish, exhibit and circulate
and/or caused to be written, published, exhibited and circulated a letter which
was addressed and sent to and received by the President of the TPI
(Philippines) Inc. at Makati City, and the
latter attached said letter as Annex 16 in a Position Paper which was submitted
to the National Labor Relations Commission, National Capital Region (Quezon City) which contains injurious, false and
malicious, defamatory and libelous statements or remarks concerning the said Benedicto A. Cajucom VII, x x x
x x x x x x x x x
with which statements, the said accused meant and intended to convey, as in fact he did mean and convey false and malicious imputation that the said Benedicto Cajucom VII is an irresponsible, untrustworthy, unscrupulous and devious individual which imputations as he well knew, were false and malicious, offensive and derogatory to the good name, character and reputation of said Benedicto Cajucom VII and that the said letter was solely written and circulated by the said accused for no other purpose than to impeach and besmirch the good name, character and reputation of the said Benedicto Cajucom VII, in order to expose him, as in fact, he was exposed to dishonor, discredit, public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[3]
Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash
with the RTC on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the
offense charged. Petitioner pointed out
that Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code required that in case the offended
party is a private individual, the criminal action for libel should be filed in
the province or city where the libelous article is first published, or the
province or city where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time
of the commission of the offense. Petitioner argued that since Cajucom's complaint did not state that he was actually
residing in Sta. Mesa,
The RTC then issued an Order dated
Petitioner elevated the issue to the
CA via a petition for certiorari, but his petition was dismissed
outright per Resolution dated
Aggrieved
by the Resolutions of the CA, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari
alleging that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction because it completely disregarded the following evidence and/or
arguments, to wit:
1)
Private
respondent himself did not state Sta. Mesa,
2)
Petitioner submitted evidence, i.e., certified
true copies of documents submitted in the administrative case filed against
private respondent before the Supreme Court, showing that private respondent's
actual residence is in Mayamot, Antipolo
City;
3)
Even the CA stated
in its Resolution that private respondent's postal address in Sta. Mesa, Manila
is the residence of private respondent's parents, not his, as he was not
physically present thereat; said address may be private respondent's domicile
but not his actual residence; and
4)
The CA should
have given weight to petitioner's argument that the clear intention of Art. 360
of the Revised Penal Code is to exclude a person's
domicile as the venue for the filing of complaints for libel.
The
petition is doomed to fail.
It
should be emphasized that the remedy of certiorari or prohibition is
limited to the correction of errors of jurisdiction. Thus, in People v. Court of Appeals,[4]
the Court expounded on the function of the remedy of certiorari in this
wise:
As observed in Land Bank of the
In
this case, the arguments in the petition reveal that what petitioner is
attacking is the correctness or legal soundness of the conclusion reached by the
CA. Indeed, petitioner alleges that the
CA failed to take his arguments or evidence into consideration, but a reading
of the CA Resolutions in question shows that it squarely addressed the
essential arguments raised by petitioner.
In the Resolution dated
The
present petition for certiorari and prohibition should also be dismissed
on the ground that it does not comply with the requirement of both Sections 1
(for certiorari) and 2 (for prohibition) of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure which states that there should be no appeal or any other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law. The more adequate remedy for petitioner to
assail the Resolution of the CA is to file a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the aforementioned Rules.
In a petition for review, petitioner may question the propriety or
correctness of the legal conclusions reached by the CA.
Nevertheless,
it should be stated that the CA did not commit any grave abuse of
discretion. The discussion of the issues
in its Resolutions precludes any finding that it ignored petitioner's arguments
or evidence. Moreover, petitioner should
be reminded that the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.[7] In Macasaet
v. People,[8]
the Court clarified that:
x x x as to the venue of the criminal action for written defamation, the complaint or information should contain allegations as to whether, at the time the offense was committed, the offended party was a public officer or a private individual and where he was actually residing at that time. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the Amended Information
filed with the RTC clearly alleged that the offended party was “then
residing at this City [
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s attestation,
it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
Marina L. Buzon with then Acting Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia (now
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Associate Justice Eliezer R. de los
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon with then Acting Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Associate Justice Jose I. Sabio, Jr., concurring.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 35-38.
[4] G.R. No. 142051,
[5]
[6] Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3.
[7] Macasaet v.
People, G. R. No. 156747,
[8]