|
VICENTE
FOZ, JR. and DANNY G. FAJARDO, Petitioners,
- versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No.
167764 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES,* VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: October
9, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
Before the court is a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City,
dated November 24, 2004 in CA-G.R. CR No. 22522, which affirmed the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Iloilo City, dated December 4, 1997
in Criminal Case No. 44527 finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of libel. Also assailed is
the CA Resolution[2]
dated
In an Information[3]
dated
That on or about the 5th day of July, 1994 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this court, both the accused as columnist and Editor-Publisher, respectively, of Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with malicious intent of impeaching the virtue, honesty, integrity and reputation of Dr. Edgar Portigo, a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City, and with the malicious intent of injuring and exposing said Dr. Edgar Portigo to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, write and publish in the regular issue of said daily publication on July 5, 1994, a certain article entitled “MEET DR. PORTIGO, COMPANY PHYSICIAN,” quoted verbatim hereunder, to wit:
MEET DR. PORTIGO,
COMPANY PHYSICIAN
PHYSICIAN (sic) are duly sworn to help to do all their best to promote the health of their patients. Especially if they are employed by a company to serve its employees.
However, the opposite appears to be happening in the Local San Miguel Corporation office, SMC employees are fuming mad about their company physician, Dr. Portigo, because the latter is not doing well in his sworn obligation in looking after the health problems of employees, reports reaching Aim.. Fire say.
One patient, Lita
Payunan, wife of employee Wilfredo Payunan, and residing in
Subsequently, the family sought the services of a Dr. Celis and a Dr. de los Reyes at Doctor's Hospital. Incidentally, where Dr. Portigo also maintains a clinic. Dr. Portigo got angry, sources said, after knowing that the family chose a surgeon (Dr. Celis) on their own without his nod as he had one to recommend.
Lita was operated by Dr. de los Reyes last March and was released from the hospital two weeks after. Later, however, she again complained of difficulty in urinating and defecating[. On] June 24, she was readmitted to the hospital.
The second operation, done by Dr. Portigo's recommendee, was devastating to the family and the patient herself who woke to find out her anus and vagina closed and a hole with a catheter punched on her right side.
This was followed by a bad news that she had cancer.
Dr. Portigo recommended another operation, this time to bore another hole on the left side of Lita. But a Dr. Rivera to whom he made the referral frankly turned it down because it would only be a waste of money since the disease was already on the terminal state.
The company and the
family spent some P150,000.00 to pay for the wrong diagnosis of the
company physician.
My sympathy for Lita
and her family. May the good Lord, Healer of all healers, be on your side, May
the Healer of all healers likewise touch the conscience of physicians to remind
them that their profession is no license for self-enrichment at the expense of
the poor. But, sad to say, Lita passed away,
Lita is not alone. Society is replete with similar experience where physicians treat their patients for profits. Where physicians prefer to act like agents of multinational corporations prescribing expensive drugs seen if there are equivalent drugs sold at the counter for much lower price. Yes, Lita, we also have hospitals, owned by a so-called charitable religious institutions and so-called civic groups, too greedy for profits. Instead of promoting baby-and mother-friendly practices which are cheaper and more effective, they still prefer the expensive yet unhealthy practices.
The (sic) shun breast feeding and promote infant milk formula although mother's milk is many times cheaper and more nutrious (sic) than the brands they peddle. These hospitals separate newly born from their moms for days, conditioning the former to milk formula while at the same time stunting the mother's mammalia from manufacturing milk. Kadiri to death!
My deepest sympathy to
the bereaved family of Mrs. Lita Payunan
who died
wherein said Dr. Portigo was portrayed as wanting in high sense of professional integrity, trust and responsibility expected of him as a physician, which imputation and insinuation as both accused knew were entirely false and malicious and without foundation in fact and therefore highly libelous, offensive and derogatory to the good name, character and reputation of the said Dr. Edgar Portigo.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Upon being arraigned[5]
on
On
WHEREFORE, in the light
of the facts obtaining and the jurisprudence aforecited, JUDGMENT is hereby
rendered finding both accused Danny Fajardo and Vicente Foz, Jr. GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for the crime
of Libel defined in Article 353 and punishable under Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code, hereby sentencing aforenamed accused to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment 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, and to pay a fine of P1,000.00
each.[7]
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in an
Order[8]
dated
Dissatisfied,
petitioners filed an appeal with the CA.
On
Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the CA denied in a Resolution dated
Hence,
herein petition filed by petitioners based on the following grounds:
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THE SUBJECT ARTICLE “LIBELOUS” WITHIN THE MEANING AND INTENDMENT OF ARTICLE 353 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF MALICE IN THIS CASE AND IN NOT FINDING THAT THE SUBJECT ARTICLE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AS PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER FAJARDO
WHO HAPPENS TO BE MERELY PUBLISHER OF
Petitioners argue that the CA erred in finding that the
element of defamatory imputation was satisfied when petitioner Foz, as
columnist, portrayed Dr. Portigo as an incompetent doctor and an opportunist
who enriched himself at the expense of the poor. Petitioners pose the question of whether a
newspaper opinion columnist, who sympathizes with a patient and her family and
expresses the family's outrage in print, commits libel when the columnist
criticizes the doctor's competence or lack of it, and such criticism turns out
to be lacking in basis if not entirely false. Petitioners claim that the
article was written in good faith in the belief that it would serve the public
good. They contend that the CA erred in finding the existence of malice in the
publication of the article; that no malice in law or actual malice was proven
by the prosecution; and that the article was printed pursuant to the bounden
duty of the press to report matters of public interest. Petitioners further contend that the subject
article was an opinion column, which was the columnist’s exclusive views; and that
petitioner Fajardo, as the editor and publisher of Panay News, did not
have to share those views and should not be held responsible for the crime of
libel.
The Solicitor General
filed his Comment, alleging that only errors of law are reviewable by
this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45; that
petitioners are raising a factual issue, i.e., whether or not the
element of malice required in every indictment for libel was established by the
prosecution, which would require the weighing anew of the evidence already
passed upon by the CA and the RTC; and
that factual findings of the CA, affirming those of the RTC, are accorded
finality, unless there appears on records some facts or circumstance of weight
which the court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which,
if properly considered, may alter the result of the case −
a situation that is not, however, obtaining in this case.
In their Reply, petitioners claim that the first two issues
presented in their petition do not require the evaluation of evidence submitted
in court; that malice, as an element of libel, has always been discussed
whenever raised as an issue via a petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners raise for the first time the issue
that the information charging them with libel did not contain allegations
sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Iloilo City.
The Court finds that the threshold issue for resolution is
whether or not the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 23, had jurisdiction over the
offense of libel as charged in the Information dated
The
Court notes that petitioners raised for the first time the issue of the RTC's
jurisdiction over the offense charged only in their Reply filed before this
Court and finds that petitioners are not precluded from doing so.
In Fukuzume
v. People,[10]
the Court ruled:
It is noted that it was only in his petition with the CA that Fukuzume raised the issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction over
the offense charged. Nonetheless, the rule is settled that an objection based
on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged may be
raised or considered motu proprio by
the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal. Moreover, jurisdiction
over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court
by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is
conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given
only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law. While an exception to
this rule was recognized by this Court beginning with the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, wherein the
defense of lack of jurisdiction by the court which rendered the questioned
ruling was considered to be barred by laches, we find that the factual
circumstances involved in said case, a civil case, which justified the departure
from the general rule are not present in the instant criminal case.[11]
The Court
finds merit in the petition.
Venue in criminal cases is an
essential element of jurisdiction. The Court held in Macasaet
v. People[12]
that:
It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied.)[13]
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 4363, provides the specific rules as to the venue in cases of written
defamation, to wit:
Article 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.
The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations, as provided for in this chapter shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
In Agbayani v. Sayo,[14] the rules on venue in Article 360 were
restated as follows:
1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published.
2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense.
3. If the offended party is a public
officer whose office is in
4. If the offended party is a public
officer holding office outside of
Applying the foregoing law to this case, since Dr. Portigo is a private individual at the time
of the publication of the alleged libelous article, the venue of the libel case
may be in the province or city where the libelous article was printed and first
published, or in the province where Dr. Portigo actually resided at the time of
the commission of the offense.
The relevant portion of the Information for libel filed in
this case which for convenience the Court quotes again, to wit:
That on or about the 5th day of July, 1994 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this court, both the accused as columnists and Editor-Publisher, respectively, of Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with malicious intent of impeaching the virtue, honesty, integrity and reputation of Dr. Edgar Portigo, a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City, and with the malicious intent of injuring and exposing said Dr. Edgar Portigo to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, write and publish in the regular issue of said daily publication on July 5, 1994, a certain article entitled “MEET DR. PORTIGO, COMPANY PHYSICIAN....”
The allegations in the Information that “Panay News,
a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of
In Chavez v. Court of Appeals,[16] which involved a libel case filed by
a private individual with the RTC of Manila, a portion of the Information of
which reads:
That on or about March 1995, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused [Baskinas and Manapat] conspiring and confederating with others whose true names, real identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, with malicious intent of impeaching the honesty, virtue, character and reputation of one FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, former Solicitor General of the Philippines, and with the evident purpose of injuring and exposing him to public ridicule, hatred and contempt, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and maliciously cause to be published in “Smart File,” a magazine of general circulation in Manila, and in their respective capacity as Editor-in-Chief and Author-Reporter, ....[17]
the Court ruled that the
Information did not sufficiently vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Manila to hear
the libel charge in consonance with Article 360. The Court made the following
disquisition:
x
x x Still,
a perusal of the Information in this case reveals that the word “published” is
utilized in the precise context of noting that the defendants “cause[d] to be
published in 'Smart File', a magazine of general circulation in Manila.” The
Information states that the libelous articles were published in Smart File, and not that they were
published in
Indeed,
if we hold that the Information at hand sufficiently vests jurisdiction in
In Agustin v.
Pamintuan,[19]
which also involved a libel case filed by a private individual, the Acting
General Manager of the Baguio Country Club, with the RTC of Baguio City where
the Information therein alleged that the libelous article was “published in the
Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Baguio and the entire Philippines,”
the Court did not consider the Information
sufficient to show that Baguio City was the venue of the printing and
first publication of the alleged libelous article.
Article
360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended provides that a private individual may
also file the libel case in the RTC of the province where he actually resided
at the time of the commission of the offense. The Information filed against
petitioners failed to allege the residence of Dr. Portigo. While the
Information alleges that “Dr. Edgar Portigo is a physician and medical
practitioner in
Again, in Agustin v. Pamintuan,[20]
where the Information for libel alleged that the “offended party was the Acting
General Manager of the Baguio Country Club
and of good standing and reputation in the community,” the Court did not find
such allegation sufficient to establish that the offended party was actually
residing in Baguio City. The Court
explained its ruling in this wise:
The
residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation or his
actual residence or place of abode provided he resides therein with continuity
and consistency; no particular length of time of residence is required.
However, the residence must be more than temporary. The term residence involves
the idea of something beyond a transient stay in the place; and to be a
resident, one must abide in a place where he had a house therein. To create a
residence in a particular place, two fundamental elements are essential: The
actual bodily presence in the place, combined with a freely exercised intention
of remaining there permanently or for an indefinite time. While it is possible
that as the Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country Club, the petitioner
may have been actually residing in
Settled is the rule that
jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations
of the complaint or information, and the offense must have been committed or
any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.[22]
Considering that the Information failed to allege the venue requirements for a libel
case under Article 360, the Court finds that the RTC of Iloilo City had no
jurisdiction to hear this case. Thus, its decision convicting petitioners of
the crime of libel should be set aside for want of jurisdiction without prejudice
to its filing with the court of competent jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision
dated
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify 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.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
* Designated
as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario,
per Special Order No. 720 dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Mariflor Punzalan-Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 37-46.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr,, with Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Isaias P. Dicdican, concurring; rollo, p. 47.
[3] Records, pp. 1-3.
[4]
[5]
[6] Penned Judge Tito G. Gustilo; CA rollo, pp. 13-28.
[7]
[8] Records, pp. 429-430.
[9] Rollo, pp. 15-16.
[10] G.R. No. 143647,
[11]
[12] G.R. No.
156747,
[13] Macasaet v. People, supra, at 271.
[14] 178 Phil. 579
(1979).
[15]
[16] G.R. No. 125813,
[17]
[18]
[19] G.R. No.
164938,
[20]
[21]
[22]