THIRD DIVISION
|
CRISTINELLI S. FERMIN, Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 157643
Present: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.,
Acting Chairperson, TINGA,* CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: March 28,
2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before
us is a petition[1] for
review on certiorari, under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, of the Decision[2]
dated
On
complaint of spouses Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo (Eddie) Gutierrez,
two (2) criminal informations for libel[4] were
filed against Cristinelli[5] S.
Fermin and Bogs C. Tugas before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
That on or about the 14th
day of June, 1995 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused
CRISTENELLI SALAZAR FERMIN, publisher, and BOGS C. TUGAS, Editor-in-Chief of
Gossip Tabloid with offices located at 68-A Magnolia Tulip St., Roxas District,
Quezon City, and circulated in Quezon City and other parts of Metro Manila and
the whole country, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping
each other, publicly and acting with malice, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously print and circulate in the headline and lead story
of the said GOSSIP TABLOID issue of June 14, 1995 the following material, to
wit:
“MAS MALAKING
HALAGA ANG NADISPALKO NILA SA STATES, MAY MGA NAIWAN DING ASUNTO
“IMPOSIBLENG NASA
AMERIKA NGAYON SI ANNABELLE DAHIL SA KALAT DIN ANG ASUNTO NILA DU’N, BUKOD PA
SA NAPAKARAMING PINOY NA HUMAHANTING SA KANILA MAS MALAKING PROBLEMA ANG
KAILANGAN NIYANG HARAPIN SA STATES DAHIL SA PERANG NADISPALKO NILA, NAGHAHANAP
LANG NG SAKIT NG KATAWAN SI ANNABELLE KUNG SA STATES NGA NIYA MAIISIPANG
PUMUNTA NGAYON PARA LANG TAKASAN NIYA SI LIGAYA SANTOS AT ANG SINTENSIYA SA
KANYA”
when in truth and in
fact, the accused very well knew that the same are entirely false and untrue
but were publicly made for no other purpose than to expose said ANNABELLE RAMA
GUTIERREZ to humiliation and disgrace, as it depicts her to be a fugitive from
justice and a swindler, thereby causing dishonor, discredit and contempt upon
the person of the offended party, to the damage and prejudice of the said
ANNABELLE RAMA GUTIERREZ.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
Upon
arraignment, petitioner and co-accused Bogs C. Tugas (Tugas) both pleaded “not
guilty.” Thereafter, a joint trial
ensued.
After
trial on the merits, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 218, in its Joint Decision[8]
dated
WHEREFORE, prosecution having
established the guilt of the accused, judgment is hereby rendered finding
CRISTENELLI S. FERMIN and BOGS C. TUGAS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, of
libel, punishable under Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences them
to an indeterminate penalty of three (3) months and eleven (11) days of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21)
days of prision correccional, as maximum, for each case.
Likewise, accused Cristenelli S.
Fermin and Bogs Tugas are sentenced to pay jointly and solidarily:
a) moral damages of:
1.
P500,000.00 to Annabelle Rama in Criminal Case
No. Q-95-62823; and
2.
P500,000.00 to Eddie Gutierrez in Criminal Case
No. Q-95-62824;
b)
attorney’s fees of P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Aggrieved,
petitioner and Tugas appealed to the CA.
The appellate court, in its Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. The appealed decision as against the accused-appellant BOGS C. TUGAS is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another is entered ACQUITTING him of the crime charged and ABSOLVING him from any civil liability; and
2.
The same appealed decision as against accused-appellant
CRISTENELLI S. FERMIN is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the award of
moral damages is REDUCED to P300,000.00
for EACH offended party, and the award of attorney’s fees is DELETED.
Costs against the appellant FERMIN.
SO ORDERED.[10]
The
CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit in the
Resolution dated
I.
THE RULING IN
II.
ART. 360 OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE WHICH MAKES A PUBLISHER LIABLE FOR LIBEL TO THE SAME EXTENT
AS IF HE WERE THE AUTHOR THEREOF MERELY CREATES A DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION WHICH
MAY BE REBUTTED BY CONTRARY EVIDENCE.
III.
THE QUESTIONED
ARTICLE IS NOT LIBELOUS.
IV.
THE QUESTIONED ARTICLE IS PROTECTED BY THE MANTLE OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND IS WITHIN THE REALM OF FAIR AND HONEST COMMENT.[11]
Being
interrelated, we shall discuss the first and the second issues jointly, then the
third and the fourth issues together.
Petitioner
posits that, to sustain a conviction for libel under Article 360 of the Revised
Penal Code, it is mandatory that the publisher knowingly participated in or
consented to the preparation and publication of the libelous article. This principle is, allegedly, based on our
ruling in
The
arguments are too simplistic and the cited jurisprudence are either misplaced
or, in fact, damning.
Foremost,
The
other cases are more in point, but they serve to reinforce the conviction of,
rather than absolve, petitioner.
In
In
People v. Topacio and Santiago,
reference was made to the Spanish text of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code
which includes the verb “publicar.” Thus, it was held that Article 360 includes
not only the author or the person who causes the libelous matter to be
published, but also the person who prints or publishes it.
Based
on these cases, therefore, proof of knowledge of and participation in the
publication of the offending article is not required, if the accused has been
specifically identified as “author, editor, or proprietor” or
“printer/publisher” of the publication, as petitioner and Tugas are in this
case.
The
rationale for the criminal culpability of those persons enumerated in Article
360 of the Revised Penal Code[19]
was enunciated in U.S. v. Ocampo,[20] to wit:
“According to the legal doctrines and jurisprudence of the United States, the printer of a publication containing libelous matter is liable for the same by reason of his direct connection therewith and his cognizance of the contents thereof. With regard to a publication in which a libel is printed, not only is the publisher but also all other persons who in any way participate in or have any connection with its publication are liable as publishers.”
x x x x
In
the case of State vs. Mason (26 L.R.A., 779; 26 Oreg., 273,
“The question then recurs as to whether the manager or proprietor of a newspaper can escape criminal responsibility solely on the ground that the libelous article was published without his knowledge or consent. When a libel is published in a newspaper, such fact alone is sufficient evidence prima facie to charge the manager or proprietor with the guilt of its publication.
“The manager and proprietor of a newspaper, we think ought to be held prima facie criminally for whatever appears in his paper; and it should be no defense that the publication was made without his knowledge or consent, x x x
“One who furnishes the means for carrying on the publication of a newspaper and entrusts its management to servants or employees whom he selects and controls may be said to cause to be published what actually appears, and should be held responsible therefore, whether he was individually concerned in the publication or not, x x x. Criminal responsibility for the acts of an agent or servant in the course of his employment necessarily implies some degree of guilt or delinquency on the part of the publisher; x x x.
“We think, therefore, the mere fact that the libelous article was published in the newspaper without the knowledge or consent of its proprietor or manager is no defense to a criminal prosecution against such proprietor or manager.”
In the case of Commonwealth vs.
Morgan (107
“It is the duty of the proprietor of a public paper, which may be used for the publication of improper communications, to use reasonable caution in the conduct of his business that no libels be published.” (Wharton’s Criminal Law, secs. 1627, 1649; 1 Bishop’s Criminal Law, secs. 219, 221; People vs. Wilson, 64 Ill., 195; Commonwealth vs. Damon, 136 Mass., 441.)
The above doctrine is also the doctrine established by the English courts. In the case of Rex vs. Walter (3 Esp., 21) Lord Kenyon said that he was “clearly of the opinion that the proprietor of a newspaper was answerable criminally as well as civilly for the acts of his servants or agents for misconduct in the management of the paper.”
This was also the opinion of Lord Hale, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. Justice Foster.
Lofft, an English author, in his work on Libel and Slander, said:
“An information for libel will lie against the publisher of a paper, although he did not know of its being put into the paper and stopped the sale as soon as he discovered it.”
In the case of People vs. Clay (86
“A person who makes a defamatory statement to the agent of a newspaper for publication, is liable both civilly and criminally, and his liability is shared by the agent and all others who aid in publishing it.”
It
is worthy to note that petitioner was not only the “publisher,” as shown by the
editorial box of Gossip Tabloid,[21]
but also its “president” and “chairperson” as she herself admitted on the
witness stand.[22] She also testified that she handled the
business aspect of the publication, and assigns editors to take charge of
everything.[23] Obviously,
petitioner had full control over the publication of articles in the said
tabloid. Her excuse of lack of
knowledge, consent, or participation in the release of the libelous article fails
to persuade. Following our ruling in Ocampo, petitioner’s criminal guilt
should be affirmed, whether or not she had actual knowledge and participation,
having furnished the means of carrying on the publication of the article
purportedly prepared by the members of the Gossip Reportorial Team, who were
employees under her control and supervision.
Petitioner
argues that Ocampo has been clarified
by the CA in People v. Beltran and
Soliven such that Maximo V. Soliven, as publisher of The Philippine Star, was acquitted by the appellate court in view
of the lack of evidence that he knew and approved the article written by Luis
D. Beltran about then President Corazon C. Aquino in the newspaper’s October
12, 1987 issue. Petitioner submits that People v. Beltran and Soliven serves as
a guide to this Court regarding the criminal liability of the publisher of the
newspaper where a libelous article is published. Put differently, it appears
that petitioner wants this Court to follow the CA decision and adopt it as
judicial precedent under the principle of stare
decisis.
The doctrine of stare decisis, embodied in Article 8[24]
of the Civil Code, is enunciated, thus:
The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.[25] (Emphasis supplied)
Unfortunately, the Beltran decision attained finality at
the level of the CA. Thus, if the CA seemingly made a new pronouncement
regarding the criminal liability of a publisher under Article 360 of the
Revised Penal Code, that ruling cannot bind this Court unless we purposely
adopt the same. Be that as it may, we
find no compelling reason to revisit
In the same vein, we note that the CA
erred in acquitting Tugas. Tugas cannot
feign lack of participation in the publication of the questioned article as was
evident from his and petitioner’s Joint Counter-Affidavit,[26] and as gleaned from his testimony before the
trial court, to wit:
WITNESS: As editor-in-chief, I have no participation in the writing of the questioned article and my only participation in the publication is the handling of the physical lay-outing, indication and allocation of type-size of the body of the article, before the same was printed and published in GOSSIP Tabloid.
Q: You do not deny the statements in this publication as executed by you in the counter-affidavit and sworn in before the City Prosecutor, is this correct?
A: Yes, that is correct.
ATTY. ALENTAJAN:
That is all for the witness, your Honor.
COURT: Do we get it right from you, if you were acting as you were, you will not allow the said publication of this same article or same stories?
A: If I were, if I was physically present, honestly I will because if you can see the article, your Honor, it is according to our source, it is not a direct comment.
COURT: So whether you are there or not, [the] same article leading to them (sic) will still find its way to come out?
A: Yes, your honor.[27]
Tugas’ testimony, in fact, confirms
his actual participation in the preparation and publication of the
controversial article and his approval thereof as it was written. Moreover, his alibi, which was considered
meritorious by the CA, that he was confined at the Mother of Perpetual Help
Clinic in Angeles City, is unavailing, in view of the testimony of his
attending physician that Tugas’ medical condition did not prevent him from
performing his work, thus –
Q: How would you describe the condition of
the patient on
A: He is in stable condition.
Q: You said he was in severe pain, from your opinion, was that condition sufficient to enable him to work?
A: Yes, in my opinion.[28]
Q: You said your impression of the patient was urethral colic and this was caused by spasm?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you say spasm, it is not sustained, it comes every now and then and [intermittently], it is not sustained?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now you said he was in stable condition?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: That means that his ailment is not life-threatening?
A: Correct.
Q: In fact, visitors were allowed to see him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: He can also write?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: He was allowed to [receive] friends?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: According to you, he was able to work also, he is not totally incapacitated in performing certain chores in the hospital room?
A: No, sir.
Q: Now, prior to
A: I saw him, he was admitted at
Q: How long before
A: That is about 2 hours.
Q: About
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who was his companion when you saw him?
A: He was boarding in my place.
Q: So, you brought him to the hospital?
A: Both of us went to the hospital.
Q: Which boarding house are you referring
[to]? In
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you know that Mr. Bogs Tugas works
here in
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And some of his work is done in your boarding house?
A: I do not know about it.
Q: How did you know that he is working on
his paper works in
A: I only know he goes to
Q: In your boarding house, you saw him read and write?
A: Probably yes.[29]
But, of course, we cannot reinstate
the ruling of the trial court convicting Bogs Tugas because with his acquittal
by the CA, we would run afoul of his constitutional right against double
jeopardy.
Anent the third and fourth issues,
petitioner argues that the subject article in the
The banner headlines of the offending
article read:
KUNG TOTOONG
NAKATAKAS NA SI ANNABELLE RAMA, IMPOSIBLENG SA STATES SIYA NAGPUNTA!
MAS MALAKING HALAGA ANG NADISPALKO NILA SA STATES, MAY MGA NAIWAN DING ASUNTO DU’N SI ANNABELLE!
On the first page of the same issue
of Gossip Tabloid, written in smaller
but bold letters, are:
HINDI SIYA
MAKAKAPUNTA SA AMERIKA DAHIL NAPAKARAMI RIN NIYANG ASUNTONG INIWAN DU’N NOON
PA, NAKAPAG-ABROAD MAN SIYA, E, PIHADONG HINDI SIYA SA AMERIKA NAGTULOY, SA
AMERIKA PA KAYA SIYA MAGTATAGO, E, ILANG TAON NA RIN SIYANG INAABANGAN DU’N NG
NGA KABABAYAN NATING NILOKO NIYA, IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER?... NAAALALA PA BA NINYO
‘YUNG MGA MAMAHALING KALDERO NA IBINEBENTA NILA NOON SA AMERIKA, DU’N SILA
NAGKAPROBLEMA, MILYON-MILYON ANG INVOLVED, KAYA KINAILANGAN NILANG UMUWI SA
PILIPINAS
The rest of the article, which
continued to the entire second page of the tabloid, follows –
Mainit na pinag-uusapan ngayon ang
iba’t ibang posibilidad na maaaring gawin ni Annabelle Rama Gutierrez para lang
hindi matuloy ang pag-aresto at pagkukulong sa kanya ng mga awtoridad kaugnay
ng sintensiyang ipinapataw sa kanya ni
Mula noong June 8, nabatid ng Gossip Tabloid, ay wala pang sinumang
nakapagtuturo kung saan talaga naroon ang ina ni Ruffa Gutierrez na hindi
pinayagang makapagpiyansa ng Branch 33 para sa pansamantala niyang kalayaan.
May mga nagpapalagay na sa
pamamagitan ng tinatawag na back-door exit, ang pag-alis ng bansa sa paraang
hindi na kailangan pang dumaan sa NAIA, ay nakaalis na si Annabelle
Pero isang mapagkakatiwalaang source
ng Gossip Tabloid ang nagsabing
napaka-imposibleng sa Amerika nagtungo si Annabelle dahil doon man ay may mga
nakahanda nang awtoridad na handang magkulong kay Annabelle, sakaling
mapatunayang naroon nga siya.
“Hindi siya makapupunta sa Amerika
dahil napakarami rin niyang asuntong iniwan doon
“Nag-abroad man siya, e pihadong
hindi siya sa Amerika nagtuloy dahil nakaabang na rin ang sangkatutak niyang
maniningil du’n ngayon!
“Sa Amerika pa kaya siya magtatago,
samantalang ilang taon na rin siyang inaabangan du’n ng mga kababayan nating
niloko niya, in one way or another?” simula ng source ng Gossip Tabloid.
Niliwanag ng naturang source na ang
dahilan ng biglaang pag-uwi ng pamilya Gutierrez sa bansa ilang taon na ang
nakararaan ay may kinalaman sa malaking halagang hindi nabayaran nina Eddie at
Annabelle sa ilang kababayan natin sa Amerika.
“Naaalala pa ba ninyo ‘yung mga
kalderong ibinebenta
“Mga mamahaling kaldero ‘yun, hindi
basta-basta kaldero ang ibinebenta nila du’n, kaya talagang ang ganda-ganda na
“Malaki ang halagang involved,
milyon-milyon, kaya nu’ng kinasuhan na sila, e kinailangan nilang umalis sa
Amerika para bumalik na dito.
“Isa si Bert Leroy, Jr. sa mga
Pilipinong nagkaroon ng malaking problema kina Eddie at Annabelle, alam ba n’yo
yun?
“Ang ganda-ganda ng samahan nila
nu’ng una sa Amerika, yumaman sila nang dahil sa mga mamahaling kaldero na
ibinebenta nila, kaso, sumabit sina Eddie at Annabelle du’n sa mismong company
na pinagkukunan nila ng produkto!
“Bukod sa napakarami na nilang
isinabit na Pinoy sa Amerika dahil sa mga kalderong ‘yun, e sumabit pa sila
nang malaking halaga sa mismong manufacturer nu’ng mga ibinebenta nilang
mamahaling kaldero!
“Yun ang dahilan kung bakit
bigla-biglang umuwi sa Pilipinas ang pamilya ni Eddie!
“Ang ikinakatwiran nilang mag-asawa
Masamang-masama diumano ang loob ng
mga Pilipinong kinatalo roon nina Eddie at Annabelle, lalo na si Annabelle, na
bukod sa mataray na ay may kayabangan pa.
“Dati nang ganyan si Annabelle!
Mataray siya na wala sa lugar.
Nu’ng nasa Amerika pa silang mag-anak, e, ‘yun din ang madalas nilang
pag-awayan du’n ni Eddie!
“Madalas
silang magkagalit, kaya si Eddie, para lang makapagpalipas ng mga sama niya ng
loob, e, du’n nag-i-stay sa bahay ng mga kaibigan niyang Pinoy!
“Grabe
ang naging problema nila du’n, kaya wala silang choice that time kung di ang
umuwi na lang sa Pilipinas!
“Ang halagang involved sa pagbebenta nila ng kaldero, e, hindi basta-basta,
milyunan ‘yon!
“Kaso
‘yung pinagbebentahan nila, ‘yung halagang dapat sana, e, ibigay nila sa
kompanya dahil porsiyentuhan lang naman sila du’n, nagastos nila!
“Nawala
ang pera, at ang balita nga sa States, e, si Annabelle ang dahilan kung bakit
nalubog sila
“Nag-casino pala si Annabelle! Grabe
raw kung magpatalo siya, kaya pati ‘yung kinita nila sa pagbebenta ng
mamahaling kaldero, e, natunaw!” sabi uli ng source ng Gossip Tabloid.
Maraming
Pilipino ang sinabitan doon ng mag-asawa, ayon pa sa source ng Gossip Tabloid, kaya ngayong may asunto
naman si Annabelle dito sa Pilipinas ay napaka-imposibleng sa Amerika pa rin
siya tatakbo.
“Paano
siya magpupunta du’n para tuluyan nang manirahan, e, ang dami-dami ring Pinoy
na naghihintay sa kanya du’n para maningil sa kanya?
“Alam
n’yo ba, bukod sa galit na galit na sa kanila ang mga Pinoy na nandu’n, e, may
mga nakaabang na ring asunto para kay Annabelle.
“So,
malabong sa Amerika pa siya tumuloy ngayong napapabalitang nasa abroad siya
dahil sa mga naghihintay na kaso sa kanya du’n.
“Ang
alam namin, e, sa Europe nagbabalak pumunta ang pamilya ni Eddie.
“Di
ba’t ilang beses nang nagpapabalik-balik du’n sina Ruffa. Noon pa, e, pinag-aralan na nina Eddie at
Annabelle ang posibilidad ng mga gagawin nila!
“Alam
nila na hindi sila puwedeng mag-stay sa States dahil kalat din ang asunto nila
du’n, bukod pa sa napakaraming Pinoy na huma-hunting sa kanila!
“Kaya
kung totoong nakalusot na nga si Annabelle ngayon para makatakas siya sa
pagkakulong, imposibleng sa States siya nagpunta!
“Mas
malaking problema ang kailangan niyang harapin sa States dahil sa perang
nadispalko nila, bukod pa sa asuntong iniwan nilang nakatiwangwang du’n!
“Naghahanap
ng sakit ng katawan si Annabelle kung sa States nga niya maisipang pumunta
ngayon para lang malusutan si Ligaya Santos at ang sintensiya sa kanya ni Judge
Palattao!” madiin pang pahayag ng mapagkakatiwalaang source ng Gossip Tabloid.[30]
A libel 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.[31] In determining whether a statement is
defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be
taken in their plain and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood
by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood
in another sense.[32]
To say that the article, in its
entirety, is not libelous disturbs one’s sensibilities; it would certainly
prick one’s conscience. There is evident
imputation of the crime of malversation (that the complainants converted for
their personal use the money paid to them by fellow Filipinos in America in
their business of distributing high-end cookware); of vices or defects for being
fugitives from the law (that complainants and their family returned to the
Philippines to evade prosecution in America); and of being a wastrel (that
Annabelle Rama Gutierrez lost the earnings from their business through
irresponsible gambling in casinos). The attribution
was made publicly, considering that Gossip
Tabloid had a nationwide circulation.
The victims were identified and identifiable. More importantly, the article reeks of malice,
as it tends to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the complainants.
Petitioner claims that there was no
malice on her part because, allegedly, the article was merely a fair and honest
comment on the fact that Annabelle Rama Gutierrez was issued a warrant of
arrest for her conviction for estafa before then Judge Palattao’s court. She even cited as proof of her lack of malice
the purported absence of any ill will against complainants, as shown by the
article she wrote about complainants’ daughter Sharmaine Ruffa Gutierrez in the
June 15, 1995 issue of the same tabloid where she expressed her sympathy and
admiration for the latter.
Notably, however, the complainants successfully
refuted the imputations during the trial.
Complainants proved that they could return anytime to the
Further worthy of mention is the
admission of petitioner before the trial court that she had very close
association with then Congressman Golez and mayoralty candidate Joey Marquez,
and that she would use her skills as a writer to campaign for them. Complainant Eddie Gutierrez ran against then
incumbent Golez for the congressional seat in
Q: When you acted as writer during the campaign, as you said, for Joey Marquez and Golez, of course you did not give your services for free to these candidates, were you paid?
A: I was not paid, Sir.
Q: You just wanted to help them, am I correct?
A: Yes, because they are my friends, Sir.
Q: And you wanted them to win the election, thru your being a writer, is that correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: You were campaigning hard for Golez and Marquez, right?
A: Right, Sir.
Q: When you say hard, you wanted your candidates to win, is it not?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Who was the opponent of Joey Marquez at that time?
A: The former Mayor Olivares, Sir.
Q: How about the opponent of Congressman Golez?
A: One of them is Eddie Gutierrez, Sir.
Q: And the tandem of Marquez and Golez versus the tandem of Olivares and Eddie Gutierrez, am I correct?
A: Actually, that was the situation at that time, Sir.
Q: Of course, the tandem of Joey Marquez was working hard to win over their opponent, is it not?
A: Whatever their problems were, I am out.
Q: As a hard campaigner, you wanted your team to win over the other, is this correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Of course you understand what PRO work is, it includes propaganda, is that correct?
A: I am sorry I don’t accept PR work, Sir.
Q: Do you understand PRO work?
A: Yes, Sir, I know.
Q: In propaganda, for your side, you promote it as against the other, right?
A: Yes, Sir.[35]
It can be gleaned from her testimony
that petitioner had the motive to make defamatory imputations against
complainants. Thus, petitioner cannot, by
simply making a general denial, convince us that there was no malice on her
part. Verily, not only was there malice
in law, the article being malicious in itself, but there was also malice in
fact, as there was motive to talk ill against complainants during the electoral
campaign.
Neither
can petitioner take refuge in the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech
and of the press. Although a wide
latitude is given to critical utterances made against public officials in the
performance of their official duties, or against public figures on matters of
public interest, such criticism does not automatically fall within the ambit of
constitutionally protected speech. If
the utterances are false, malicious or unrelated to a public officer’s
performance of his duties or irrelevant to matters of public interest involving
public figures, the same may give rise to criminal and civil liability.[36] While complainants are considered public
figures for being personalities in the entertainment business, media people,
including gossip and intrigue writers and commentators such as petitioner, do
not have the unbridled license to malign their honor and dignity by
indiscriminately airing fabricated and malicious comments, whether in broadcast
media or in print, about their personal lives.[37]
We must however take this
opportunity to likewise remind media practitioners of the high ethical
standards attached to and demanded by their noble profession. The danger of an unbridled irrational
exercise of the right of free speech and press, that is, in utter contempt of
the rights of others and in willful disregard of the cumbrous responsibilities
inherent in it, is the eventual self-destruction of the right and the
regression of human society into a veritable Hobbesian state of nature where
life is short, nasty and brutish.
Therefore, to recognize that there can be no absolute “unrestraint” in
speech is to truly comprehend the quintessence of freedom in the marketplace of
social thought and action, genuine freedom being that which is limned by the
freedom of others. If there is freedom of
the press, ought there not also be freedom from the press? It is in this
sense that self-regulation as distinguished from self-censorship becomes
the ideal mean for, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter has warned, “[W]ithout x x x a
lively sense of responsibility, a free press may readily become a powerful
instrument of injustice.
Lest we be misconstrued, this is not
to diminish nor constrict that space in which expression freely flourishes and
operates. For we have always strongly
maintained, as we do now, that freedom of expression is man’s birthright –
constitutionally protected and guaranteed, and that it has become the singular
role of the press to act as its “defensor fidei” in a democratic
society such as ours. But it is also
worth keeping in mind that the press is the servant, not the master, of
the citizenry, and its freedom does not carry with it an unrestricted hunting
license to prey on the ordinary citizen.[38]
In
view of the foregoing disquisitions, the conviction of petitioner for libel
should be upheld.
With
respect to the penalty to be imposed for this conviction, we note that on
However,
the Circular likewise allows the court, in the exercise of sound discretion,
the option to impose imprisonment as penalty, whenever the imposition of a fine
alone would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the
social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice.
In
the case at bench, the Court considers the public’s speculations as to the whereabouts
of Annabelle Rama Gutierrez with the issuance of the warrant of arrest after her
initial conviction for estafa. Petitioner
fueled these speculations through her article.
However, her article went overboard and exceeded the bounds of fair comment. This warrants her conviction. Nonetheless, in light of the relatively wide
latitude given to utterances against public figures such as private
complainants, and consonant with Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, the Court
deems it proper to modify the penalty of imprisonment to a fine in the amount
of P6,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in
each case. But the award of moral
damages for each of the private complainants in the amount of P500,000.00,
as ordered by the trial court, should be restored on account of the serious
anxiety and the wounded feelings suffered by complainants from the libelous
article, particularly taking into account the fact that petitioner and the
private complainants were on relatively good terms with each other, and
complainants gave no cause or offense which could have provoked the malicious
publication.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated P6,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, in each case. The
award of moral damages, in the amount of P300,000.00 each in favor of
complainants Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo Gutierrez, is increased to P500,000.00. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
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.
MA.
ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
Acting 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, I certify 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* In lieu of Associate Justice
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago per Special Order No. 497, dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-43.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr., with Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring; id. at 45-60.
[3]
[4] Both entitled “People of the
[5] Also referred in the records as Cristenelli.
[6] Annabelle Rama Gutierrez in one, and Eduardo (Eddie) Gutierrez in the other.
[7] Records, pp. 2-3.
[8]
[9]
[10] Rollo,
pp. 59-60.
[11]
[12] 28 Phil. 599 (1914).
[13] 59 Phil. 356 (1934).
[14] 27 Phil. 347 (1914).
[15] 36 Phil. 243 (1917).
[16] 18 Phil. 1 (1910).
[17] CA-G.R. CR No. 13561,
[18] Supra note 12, at 604-605. (Emphasis supplied.)
[19] Art. 360. Persons responsible. – Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same
extent as if he were the author thereof.
x x x (Emphasis supplied)
[20] Supra note 16, at 50-52.
[21] Exhibit “A-8;” records, p. 60.
[22] TSN,
[23]
[24] “Judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the constitution shall form part of the legal system
of the
[25] Castillo
v. Sandiganbayan, 427 Phil. 785, 793 (2002).
[26] Records, p. 17.
[27] Cross-examination of Bogs Tugas;
TSN,
[28] Direct examination of Dr. Richard U.
Velez; TSN,
[29] Cross-examination of Bogs Tugas;
TSN,
[30] Records, p. 59.
[31] REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 353.
[32] Novicio
v. Aggabao, 463 Phil. 510, 516 (2003).
[33] Exhibits “E-4” to “E-8”; records, pp. 75-76.
[34] Testimony of Eddie Gutierrez; TSN,
[35] Cross-examination of Cristinelli
Fermin; TSN,
[36] Brillante
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571, October 19, 2004, 440
SCRA 541, 574.
[37] Soriano
v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-72383,
[38] Borjal v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 1, 28 (1999).
[39] “In Sazon v. Court of Appeals (325 Phil. 1053, 1068 [1996]), the Court
modified the penalty imposed upon petitioner, an officer of a homeowners’
association, for the crime of libel from imprisonment and fine in the amount of
P200.00, to fine only of P3,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency, for the reason that he wrote the libelous article merely
to defend his honor against the malicious messages that earlier circulated
around the subdivision, which he thought was the handiwork of the private
complainant.
In Mari v.
Court of Appeals (388 Phil. 269, 279 [2000]), in which the crime involved
is slander by deed, the Court modified the penalty imposed on petitioner, an
ordinary government employee, from imprisonment to a fine of P1,000.00,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, on the ground that the
latter committed the offense in the heat of anger and in reaction to a
perceived provocation.
In Brillante v.
Court of Appeals (G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571, November 11, 2005, 474
SCRA 480, 484), the Court deleted the penalty of imprisonment imposed upon
petitioner, a local politician, but maintained the penalty of fine of P4,000.00,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in each of the five (5)
cases of libel, on the ground that the intensely feverish passions evoked
during the election period in 1988 must have agitated petitioner into writing
his open letter, and that incomplete privileged communication should be
appreciated in favor of petitioner, especially considering the wide latitude
traditionally given to defamatory utterances against public officials in
connection with or relevant to their performance of official duties or against
public figures in relation to matters of public interest involving them.
In Buatis, Jr.
v. People (G.R No. 142509, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 275, 292), the Court
opted to impose upon petitioner, a lawyer, the penalty of fine only for the
crime of libel considering that it was his first offense and he was motivated
purely by his belief that he was merely exercising a civic or moral duty to his
client when he wrote the defamatory letter to private complainant.”