13 November 2018

Ms. Jocelyn De Joya

Laoag City

Dear Ms. Joya,

This legal opinion seeks to answer your question as to whether or not you have done anything illegal
with your blog and what can be done regarding the threats you’re receiving online.

The Facts

Per our discussion and the documents you have shown me, the following are the pertinent facts:

You are a writer under the pseudonym ‘Happy Happy Joy Joy’ and your blogs were mostly benign until
president Duterte was elected and became very critical of the administration, to the point of publishing
articles on the so called Davao death squad and alleged ill gotten wealth of the president.

Eventually, some especially rabid supported of president Duterte came to know about the blogs and
started harassing you online such as threatening to hunt you down, to kill you or rape you among other
things.

The Applicable Law and Jurisprudence that may apply

1. 353 of the Philippines Revised Penal Code

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 dishonor, discredit or contempt
of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”

2. truth is a viable defense for slander and libel under Philippines defamation laws. “Fair reporting”
also qualifies.
3. Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 SCRA 427 (1988) citing U.S. v. O’Connell, 37 Phil. 767
(1918)
“Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputation than
false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander.
A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and
understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain
offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person
or persons up to public ridicule.”
4. Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code
libel may be committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio,
phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.
5. In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it
appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with
good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.
6. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides that:

“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:

A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and

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.

7. The Doctrine of Privilege Communication

defense against the element of malice and it applies to both libel and oral defamation. This means
that even if the material is considered libelous still there is no malice in the eyes of the law. These
consist of two kinds: (a) Absolutely Privilege Communication and the (b) Qualifiedly Privileged
Communication.

A. Absolutely Privileged Communication: this refers to a communication, whether oral or written

which is defamatory and may even be made in bad faith but which cannot give rise to either
criminal or civil liability. This is because there are higher considerations involved which are
considered more paramount than the damage to the reputation of a person.
- Private Communications, made by one to another in the performance of a legal, moral or
social duty provided that: (i). The one making the communication must have an interest in
the subject and (ii) the person to whom the communication was made is one who can act on
the matter
(a). This communication maybe oral or written, private, public or official document which
are sent for redress of grievances or to request for appropriate action. But it must be
private in that it is intended to be only between the sender and the recipient. Undue
publicity removes the privilege.
The communication must meet these elements:

(i). The person who made the communication had a legal, moral or social duty to make the
communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or
of the one to whom it is made

(ii). The communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest
or duty in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the protection sought ( or that the
recipient is a proper person who can act on the communication) and

(iii). The statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice ( Binay vs.
Sec. of Justice, Sept. 08, 2006)
8. Borjal vs. Ct. of Appeals, (301 SCRA 1, Jan. 14, 1999)
the enumeration in Article 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged communications
because “fair comments on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid
defense in an action for libel or slander”
9. Grave Threats under Article 282
act threatened to be done is a crime e.g. to kill, to burn or destroy property, to box or to inflict
injuries
10.