Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Subsequently, petitioner appealed the RTC's decision to the CA The principal issue for resolution is whether or not petitioner is
which, in a Decision dated January 18, 2000, affirmed in its guilty of the crime of libel.
entirety the decision of the trial court. In his Memorandum, petitioner claims that: the CA failed to
apply the ruling in People v. Velasco that 'if the act/matter
charged as libelous is only an incident in [an] act which has For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must
another objective, the crime is not libel; when he made his reply concur:(a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it
to respondent's letter to Mrs. Quingco making a demand for her must be given publicity;and (d) the victim must be identifiable.
to vacate the premises, his objective was to inform respondent
that Mrs. Quingco is one of the recognized tenants of the The last two elements have been duly established by the
Rodriguez estate which is claiming ownership over the area of prosecution.There is publication in this case.In libel, publication
Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig City, and petitioner is the attorney-in- means making the defamatory matter, after it is written, known
fact of the administrator of the Rodriquez estate; to someone other than the person against whom it has been
communication in whatever language, either verbal or written written.Petitioner's subject letter-reply itself states that the
ofa lawyer under obligation to defend a client's cause is but a same was copy furnished to all concerned. Also, petitioner had
privileged communication; the instant case is a qualified dictated the letter to his secretary.It is enough that the author
privileged communication which is lost only by proof of malice, of the libel complained of has communicated it to a third
however, respondent failed to present actual proof of malice; person. Furthermore, the letter, when found in the mailbox, was
the existence of malice in fact may be shown by extrinsic open, not contained in an envelope thus, open to public.
evidence that petitioner bore a grudge against the offended
party, or there was ill will or ill feeling between them which The victim of the libelous letter was identifiable as the subject
existed at the time of the publication of the defamatory letter-reply was addressed to respondent himself.
imputation which were not at all indicated by respondent in his
complaint; contrary to the findings of the CA, there was We shall then resolve the issues raised by petitioner as to
justifiablemotive in sending such a letter which was to defend whether the imputation is defamatory and malicious.
the vested interest of the estate and to abate any move of
respondent to eject Mrs. Quingco. In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the
words used are to be construed in their entirety and should
Petitioner further argues that if the words used in the libelous be taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as
letter-reply would be fully scrutinized, there is justification for they would naturally be understood by persons reading
the use of those words, to wit: 'lousy but inutile threatening them, unless it appears that they were used and understood
letterusing carabao English was due to the fact that the demand in another sense.
letter was indeed a threatening letter as it does not serve its
purpose as respondent's client has no legal right over the For the purpose of determining the meaning of any publication
property and respondent did not file the ejectment suit; that alleged to be libelous, we laid down the rule in Jimenez v. Reyes,
respondent is just making a mockery out of Mrs. Quingco, thus to wit:
he is stupid; that the words 'Yours in Satan name is only a In Tawney vs. Simonson, Whitcomb & Hurley Co.
complementary greeting used in an ordinary communication (109 Minn., 341), the court had the following to
letter, which is reflected to the sender but not to the person say on this point:In determining whether the
being communicatedand which is just the reverse of saying specified matter is libelous per se, two rules of
'Yours in Christ. construction are conspicuously applicable:(1)That
We deny the petition. construction must be adopted which will give to
Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as a the matter such a meaning as is natural and
public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or obvious in the plain and ordinary sense in which
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, the public would naturally understand what was
status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, uttered.(2)The published matter alleged to be
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to libelous must be construed as a whole.
blacken the memory of one who is dead. In applying these rules to the language of an
alleged libel, the court will disregard any subtle or
ingenious explanation offered by the publisher on Art. 354.cralawRequirement for publicity.─ Every
being called to account.The whole question being defamatory imputation is presumed to be
the effect the publication had upon the minds of malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention
the readers, and they not having been assisted by and justifiable motive for making it is shown,
the offered explanation in reading the article, it except in the following cases:
comes too late to have the effect of removing the 1.cralawA private communication made by any
sting, if any there be, from the words used in the person to another in the performance of any legal,
publication.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary moral, or social duty; and
2.cralawA fair and true report, made in good faith,
Gauging from the abovementioned tests, the words used in the without any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
letter dated August 18, 1995 sent by petitioner to respondent is legislative, or other official proceedings which are
defamatory. In using words such as 'lousy', 'inutile', 'carabao not of confidential nature, or of any statement,
English', 'stupidity', and 'satan', the letter, as it was written, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or
casts aspersion on the character, integrity and reputation of of any other act performedby public officers in the
respondent as a lawyer which exposed him to ridicule. No exercise of their functions.
evidence aliunde need be adduced to prove it.As the CA said,
these very words of petitioner have caused respondent to public Clearly, the presumption of malice is done away with when the
ridicule as even his own family have told him: 'Ginagawa ka defamatory imputation is a qualified privileged communication.
lang gago dito.
In order to prove that a statement falls within the purview of a
Any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory; qualified privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, as
and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, every claimed by petitioner, the following requisites must concur: (1)
defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it the person who made the communication had a legal, moral, or
be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an
is shown. Thus, when the imputation is defamatory, the interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of
prosecution need not prove malice on the part of petitioner the one to whom it is made; (2) the communication is addressed
(malice in fact), for the law already presumes that petitioner's to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or
imputation is malicious (malice in law). A reading of petitioner's duty in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the
subject letter-reply showed that he malevolently castigated protection sought; and (3) the statements in the communication
respondent for writing such a demand letter to Mrs. Quingco. are made in good faith and without malice.
There was nothing in the said letter which showed petitioner's
good intention and justifiable motive for writing the same in While it would appear that the letter was written by petitioner
order to overcome the legal inference of malice. out of his social duty to a member of the association which he
heads, and was written to respondent as a reply to the latter's
Petitioner, however, insists that his letter was a private demand letter sent to a member, however, a reading of the
communication made in the performance of his moral and social subject letter-reply addressed to respondent does not show any
duty as the attorney-in-fact of the administrator of the explanation concerning the status of Mrs. Quingco and why she
Rodriguez estate where Mrs. Quingco is a recognized tenant and is entitled to the premises as against the claim of respondent's
to whom respondent had written the demand letter to vacate, client. The letter merely contained insulting words, i.e, 'lousy
thus in the nature of a privileged communication and not and 'inutile letter using carabao English', 'stupidity', and 'satan',
libelous. which are totally irrelevant to his defense of Mrs. Quingco's right
We are not persuaded. over the premises. The words as written had only the effect of
Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides: maligning respondent's integrity as a lawyer, a lawyer who had
served as legal officer in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources for so many years until his retirement and
afterwards as consultant of the same agency and also a notary The courts are given the discretion to choose whether to impose
public. The letter was crafted in an injurious way than what is a single penalty or conjunctive penalties; that is, whether to
necessary in answering a demand letter which exposed impose a penalty of fine, or a penalty of imprisonment only, or a
respondent to public ridicule thus negating good faith and penalty of both fine and imprisonment.
showing malicious intent on petitioner's part.
Moreover, the law requires that for a defamatory imputation In Vaca v. Court of Appeals, where petitioners therein
made out of a legal, moral or social duty to be privileged, such were convicted of B.P. 22 which provides for alternative
statement must be communicated only to the person or persons penalties of fine or imprisonment or both fine and
who have some interest or duty in the matter alleged, and who imprisonment, we deleted the prison sentence imposed upon
have the power to furnish the protection sought by the author of petitioners and instead ordered them only to pay a fine
the statement. A written letter containing libelous matter cannot equivalent to double the amount of the check. We held:
be classified as privileged when it is published and circulated Petitioners are first-time offenders. They are Filipino
among the public. In this case, petitioner admitted that he entrepreneurs who presumably contribute to the
dictated the letter to one of her secretaries who typed the same national economy. Apparently, they brought this
and made a print out of the computer. While petitioner appeal, believing in all good faith, although
addressed the reply-letter to respondent, the same letter mistakenly, that they had not committed a violation
showed that it was copy furnished to all concerned. His lack of of B.P. Blg. 22. Otherwise, they could simply have
selectivity is indicative of malice and is anathema to his claim of accepted the judgment of the trial court and applied
privileged communication. Such publication had already created for probation to evade prison term.It would best
upon the minds of the readers a circumstance which brought serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the
discredit and shame to respondent's reputation. penalty within the range of discretion allowed by '1,
Since the letter is not a privileged communication, malice is par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the
presumed under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely,
presumption was not successfully rebutted by petitioner as that of redeeming valuable human material and
discussed above. preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal
Thus, we find that the CA did not commit any error in affirming liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to
the findings of the trial court that petitioner is guilty of the crime the protection of the social
of libel. order.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
An appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case for review
and it becomes our duty to correct any error, as may be found In the subsequent case of Lim v. People, we did the same and
in the appealed judgment, whether assigned as an error or deleted the penalty of imprisonment and merely imposed a fine
not.We find that the award of P20,000.00 as compensatory for violation of B.P. 22, concluding that such would best serve
damages should be deleted for lack of factual basis. To be the ends of criminal justice.
entitled to actual and compensatory damages, there must be Adopting these cases, we issued Administrative Circular No. 12-
competent proof constituting evidence of the actual amount 2000. On February 14, 2001, we issued Administrative Circular
thereof. Respondent had not presented evidence in support 13-2001 which modified Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 by
thereof. stressing that the clear tenor of Administrative Circular No. 12-
2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty,
Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes libel by means but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the
of writings or similar means with prision correccional in its penalties provided for in B.P. 22.
minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to
6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be While Vaca case is for violation of B.P. 22, we find the reasons
brought by the offended party. behind the imposition of fine instead of imprisonment applicable
to petitioner's case of libel. We note that this is petitioner's first
offense of this nature. He never knew respondent prior to the OGIE DIAZ, G.R. No. 159787
demand letter sentby the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then Petitioner,
sought his assistance thereto. He appealed from the decision of Present:
the RTC and the CA in his belief that he was merely exercising a
civil or moral duty in writing the letter to private complainant. In PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
fact, petitioner could have applied for probation to evade prison SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
term but he did not do so believing that he did not commit a - versus- *CORONA,
crime thus, he appealed his case. We believe that the State is AZCUNA, and
concerned not only in the imperative necessity of protecting the
GARCIA, JJ.
social organization against the criminal acts of destructive
individuals but also in redeeming the individual for economic
usefulness and other social ends. Consequently, we delete the
prison sentence imposed on petitioner and instead impose a
fine of six thousand pesos. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:
Respondent.
This is not the first time that we removed the penalty of May 25, 2007
imprisonment and imposed a fine instead in the crime of libel. In x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Sazon v. Court of Appeals,petitioner was convicted of libel and
was meted a penalty of imprisonment and fine; and upon a DECISION
petition filed with us, we affirmed the findings of libel but
changed the penalty imposed to a mere fine. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Florinda further testified that at the time the article came Bautista, for his part, stated that he has never heard
out, she and Philip were no longer living together. of any actress or starlet named Patricia Santillan.After
cralaw reading the article, it never came to his mind that Miss S is
cralawMila Parawan also took the witness stand and one Patricia Santillan.
corroborated Florindas testimony.She further testified that
after Philip and Florinda parted ways, her former press Douglas Quijano, a long-time line producer and talent
relations officer, who used the nom de plume Isko Peta, manager, testified that in his many years of managing movie
wrote an item entitled Ibinulgar namin ang babaeng and TV stars, he could not recall an actress named Miss S.He
inanakan ni Philip Henson which appeared in the December has never heard of Patricia Santillan.
2, 1991 issue of Artista Magazine. Philip believed that
Florinda released their story to the press.He then caused the On May 12, 1998, the trial court rendered its
publication of the libelous article against her. judgment convicting petitioner and Pichel of the crime
Mila Parawan added that Florinda came from a well charged.The dispositive portion reads:
respected family in their community. Thus, she could not WHEREFORE, in view of the above
have done the acts being imputed to her. discussion and findings, the Court finds both
accused Manny Pichel and Ogie Diaz guilty
On cross-examination, Mila Parawan stated she was beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of libel,
certain the Miss S referred to in the article is Florinda defined in Article 353 and penalized under
because petitioner and Pichel, her good friends, told her that Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as
Miss S is her alaga (ward). amended, and hereby sentences each of them
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of SIX (6)
Pichel testified that he had been a journalist covering MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY as minimum to
show business for the past 21 years. He denied having met FOUR (4) YEARS AND TWO (2) MONTHS of
or known the complaining witness.He also denied being the prision correcional in its Minimum and Medium
editor of Bandera.He was only its lay-out artist, a part time Periods, as maximum and to pay a fine of
job. P3,000.00 each.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner Ogie Diaz admitted that while he wrote the
column Pakurot where the alleged libelous statements On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision,
appeared, however, he did not know the complaining witness sustained the conviction of petitioner but acquitted Pichel.
or Miss S.The source of his article was Philip Henson.
Petitioner timely filed a motion for reconsideration,
The defense also presented as witness two movie but it was denied by the appellate court in its Resolution
journalists Ernie Pecho and Mario Bautista.Both had more dated August 29, 2003.
than 50 years covering the entertainment industry.
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari.
Pecho testified that he has never heard the screen
name Patricia Santillan; that reading the article in question The sole issue for our resolution is whether the
would not give the reader any idea that Miss S is Patricia subject article is libelous.
reputation of Miss S.The words convey that Miss S is a sexual
Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, libertine with unusually wanton proclivities in the bedroom.In
provides: a society such as ours, where modesty is still highly prized
ART. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is a among young ladies, the behavior attributed to Miss S by the
public and malicious imputation of a crime, or article in question had besmirched both her character and
of a vice, or defect, real or imaginary, or any reputation.
act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, As to the element of malice, we find that since on its
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical face the article is defamatory, there is a presumption that
person, or to blacken the memory of one who is the offender acted with malice. In Article 354 of the same
dead. Code, 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.There is malice
This provision should be read in relation with Article when the author of the imputation is prompted by personal
355 of the same Code which states: ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely
ART. 355. Libel by means of writings or to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have
similar means. A libel committed by means of been defamed.We agree with the Court of Appeals that there
writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, was neither good reason nor motive why the subject article
phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, was written except to embarrass Miss S and injure her
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar reputation.
means, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium On the element of publication, there can be no
periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 question that the article appeared in the December 28, 1991
pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action issue of Bandera, a local tabloid.
which may be brought by the offended party.
The last element of libel is that the victim is identified
Thus, for an imputation to be libelous, the following or identifiable from the contents of the libelous article.In
requisites must be present: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be
must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the identifiable, although it is not necessary that the person be
victim must be identifiable.Absent one of these elements, a named.It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion is
case for libel will not prosper. apparent or if the publication contains matters of description
or reference to facts and circumstances from which others
We find the first element present. In determining reading the article may know the person alluded to, or if the
whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to latter is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that
be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their those knowing such person could and did understand that he
plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they would naturally was the person referred to.Kunkle v. Cablenews-American
be understood by the persons reading them, unless it and Lyons laid the rule that this requirement is complied
appears that they were used and understood in another with where a third person recognized or could identify the
sense.In the instant case, the article in question details the party vilified in the article.
sexual activities of a certain Miss S and one Philip Henson
who had a romantic liaison.In their ordinary sense, the words The libelous article, while referring to Miss S, does not
used cast aspersion upon the character, integrity, and give a sufficient description or other indications which
identify Miss S.In short, the article fails to show that Miss S cralawIn 1997, respondent Vicente C. Ponce filed a string of
and Florinda Bagay are one and the same person. criminal complaints against petitioner Nicasio I. Alcantara and
his family, hereafter the Alcantaras, including one for estafa
Although the article is libelous, we find that Florinda against petitioner in the Makati Prosecutors Office docketed as
Bagay could not have been the person defamed therein.In I.S. No. 97-39547. In essence, respondent Ponce alleged that
Uy Tioco v. Yang Shu Wen, we held that where the petitioner had swindled him out of 3,000,000 shares of Floro
requirement for an identified or identifiable victim has not Cement Corporation.
been complied with, the case for libel must be dismissed.
It was in the course of the preliminary investigation of the
complaint for estafa that respondent Ponce, shortly after giving
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The challenged
his sur-rejoinder affidavit, submitted to the investigating
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 22545 is
prosecutor a newsletter purporting to be a belated annex to the
REVERSED.Petitioner Ogie Diaz is ACQUITTED of the crime of
affidavit.It was prefaced with the quotation For every
libel.The bail on appeal posted for his temporary liberty is extraordinary fortune there is a great crime and the text:
ordered CANCELLED.
SO ORDERED. An example is Marcos. We need not discuss this.
Second example is the Alcantaras.
cralawa)Overshipment of log;b) Land grabbing;
FIRST DIVISION cralawc)Corruption of public office;cralawd)
Corporate grabbing.
NICASIO I. ALCANTARA,G.R. No. 156183
cralawPetitioner,
Present: The newsletter then went on to discuss SEC Case No. 2507
PUNO, C.J., which, in the sur-rejoinder affidavit, respondent Ponce described
Chairperson, as being the forefather of all the cases he had filed against the
cralawSANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, Alcantaras.In SEC Case No. 2507 which the Securities and
- v e r s u s -CORONA, Exchange Commission en banc decided against him, Ponce
AZCUNA* and accused the Alcantaras of defrauding him of his shares in Iligan
GARCIA, JJ. Cement Corporation.
VICENTE C. PONCE and the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, On December 3, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for libel
cralawcralawRespondents.Promulgated: against respondent Ponce with the Makati Prosecutors Office in
connection with the aforesaid newsletter. He claimed that: (1)
February 28, 2007 the statements therein were defamatory; (2) respondent had
x----------------------------------------- circulated it in the Makati Prosecutors Office and (3) the
---------x newsletter could not be considered an annex to the sur-
DECISION rejoinder because respondent had not attached it to the said
affidavit but had given it thereafter.
CORONA, J.:
The preliminary investigation was conducted by City Prosecutor
cralawThis is a petition for review on certiorari from a decision Imelda P. Saulog. On March 17, 1998, Prosecutor Saulog issued
and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA). a resolution finding probable cause for libel and recommending
the filing of an information in court. Thereafter, the case was
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati and raffled to Judge finding that Judge Salvador had not committed grave abuse of
Tranquil Salvador of Branch 63. discretion for granting the withdrawal of the information for libel
against respondent Ponce.
However, respondent Ponce filed a petition for review with the The crime of libel, as defined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal
Secretary of Justice, who reversed the City Prosecutor in a Code, has the following elements:
resolution dated February 28, 2000. This reversal was based on (1) imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or
the finding that the newsletter was a privileged communication, imaginary, or any act, omission, condition,
having been submitted to the investigating prosecutor Benjamin status or circumstance;
R. Bautista as an intended annex to respondents sur-rejoinder. (2) publicity or publication;
The Secretary of Justice thus directed the withdrawal of the (3) malice;
information. (4) direction of such imputation at a natural or
juridical person, or even a dead person and
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was (5) tendency to cause the dishonor, discredit or
denied.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary contempt of the person defamed.
Petitioner elevated the matter via petition for certiorari to the The factual antecedents are undisputed. The only issue is
CA where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 61543. In a whether or not the controversial newsletter constituted
decision dated August 29, 2002, the CA found that the Secretary privileged communication, which would exempt it from libel.
of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion, set aside the
latters resolution and directed the reinstatement of the criminal cralawAccording to the Special Fifth Division of the CA:
case. After unsuccessfully moving for reconsideration in the cralaw
Department of Justice, respondent Ponce attempted to elevate cralawIt is a settled principle in this jurisdiction
the matter to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review that statements made in the course of judicial
on certiorari. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 157105. proceedings are absolutely privileged. This
However, we denied respondent Ponces motion for extension for absolute privilege remains regardless of the
time to file his petition as well as his subsequent motions for defamatory tenor and the presence of malice if the
reconsideration. same are relevant, pertinent or material to the
cause in hand or subject of the inquiry. The lone
In the meantime, however, before CA-G.R. SP No. 61543 was requirement imposed to maintain the cloak of
decided, the Office of the Makati City Prosecutor, in deference absolute privilege is the test of relevancy.
to the resolution of the Justice Secretary, filed a motion to
withdraw information, which the trial court granted on cralawIn this case, a reading of the Sur-Rejoinder
September 28, 2001. The trial court ruled that the absence of Affidavit, contrary to petitioners submission,
the essential element of publicity precluded the commission of instantly shows that there was sufficient reference
the crime of libel. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the to the newsletter which justified the Justice
withdrawal but the trial court denied the motion in an order Secretary and respondent Judge in holding that
dated March 21, 2002.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary private respondent actually intended the said
article to be included as an annex attached to said
On June 17, 2002, petitioner filed another petition for certiorari pleading and that the same was merely omitted
in the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 71189. In this case, the and belatedly submitted to Prosecutor Bautista
CA rendered the assailed decision. during the preliminary investigation. Such
sufficient reference is shown by the fact that the
The principal question for our consideration is whether or not newsletter is about SEC Case No. 2507 the very
the CA, in its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 71189, gravely erred in same case being discussed by private respondent
in pages 8 to 12 of his Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit and intensity. The doctrine of privileged
hence, petitioners claim that Annex F mentioned communication has a practical purpose.
together with Annex E, both articles showing the
devious maneuvering of petitioner in the said xxxcralawxxxcralawxxx
case, refers to another article. And even if the
supposed Exhibit F could refer also to that article cralawPublication in libel means making the
So The Public May Know, such circumstance will defamatory matter, after it has been written,
not exclude the subject newsletter as an intended known to someone other than the person to whom
annex to the said pleading as in fact private it has been written. There is publication if the
respondent explicitly mentioned articles without material is communicated to a third person. What
stating that there were only two (2) particular is material is that a third person has read or heard
articles being referred or which of those articles the libelous statement, for a mans reputation is
caused to be published by his counsel. the estimate in which others hold him, not the
good opinion which he has of himself. Our
cralawAs the Justice Secretary opined and which Supreme Court has established the rule that when
position the respondent Judge adopted, the a public officer, in the discharge of his or her
newsletter containing the defamatory statement is official duties, sends a communication to another
relevant and pertinent to the criminal complaint officer or to a body of officers, who have a duty to
for estafa then under preliminary investigation. perform with respect to the subject matter of the
The crime of estafa involves deceit, dishonesty communication, such communication does not
and other fraudulent acts. The inclusion in the Sur- amount to publication. Applying this rule by
Rejoinder Affidavit of the newsletter discussing the analogy to the present case, private respondents
alleged corporate grabbing by petitioner will tend submission of the newsletter intended as an annex
to support private respondents case of estafa to his Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit in I.S. No. 97-39547
against petitioner insofar as such alleged to Prosecutor Bautista who was then conducting
corporate grabbing will highlight or manifest the preliminary investigation in said case, does not
petitioners propensity for dishonest dealing or amount to publication for the reason that the
fraudulent machinations. There is therefore no sending of such material was made specifically for
doubt that the subject newsletter is relevant and the purpose of including the same as evidence in
pertinent to the criminal complaint for estafa, and the preliminary investigation. That such
hence the same comes within the protective cloak submission was belatedly made does not take out
of absolutely privileged communications as to the material from the absolutely privileged
exempt private respondent from liability for libel communication rule. Prosecutor Bautista had a
or damages. legal duty to perform with respect to the subject
communication, which is to consider the same
cralawIn determining the issue of relevancy of along with the other evidence submitted by
statements made in judicial proceedings, courts private respondent as complainant in I.S. no. 97-
have adopted a liberal attitude by resolving all 39547, in determining the existence of probable
doubts in favor of relevancy. Thus, in People vs. cause for the commission of the crime of estafa
Aquino, our Supreme Court has emphasized that it and that petitioner as accused-defendant therein
is the rule that what is relevant or pertinent should should be tried for such offense. Under the
be liberally construed to favor the writer, and the circumstances and in the lawful exercise of private
words are not to be scrutinized with microscopic respondents right to present evidence in support
of his accusations against petitioner in the criminal
complaint for estafa, We fail to see how such immunity and cannot be used as a basis for an
submission of documentary evidence omitted from action for defamation. (Emphasis ours)
the annexes to the Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit, could
amount to publication that would give rise to
private respondents liability for a libel charge The ruling in Borg is persuasive in this jurisdiction. We see no
especially when there is no proof of the alleged reason why we should not adopt it.
circulation of copies of the subject newsletter
except to the City Prosecutors Office of Makati Furthermore, the newsletter qualified as a communication made
wherein I.S. No. 97-39547 was then in the bona fide upon any subject-matter in which the party
preliminary investigation stage. Petitioners feeble communicating has an interest . . . made to a person having a
argument that Prosecutor Bautista remains a third corresponding interest or duty, although it contained
person because the subject newsletter was never [in]criminatory matter which without this privilege would be
included or formally offered as evidence, hardly slanderous and actionable.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
convinces Us to hold that there was actual
publication for purpose of finding a prima facie While the doctrine of privileged communication can be abused,
case for libel against the private respondent. He and its abuse can lead to great hardships, to allow libel suits to
must be reminded that the case for estafa was still prosper strictly on this account will give rise to even greater
at the preliminary investigation stage and there is hardships. The doctrine itself rests on public policy which looks
no requirement of a formal offer of such to the free and unfettered administration of justice. It is as a
documentary evidence or supporting documents rule applied liberally.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
to establish probable cause (citations omitted).
The one obstacle that those pleading the defense of privileged
cralawSince the newsletter was presented during the communication must hurdle is the test of relevancy. Under this
preliminary investigation, it was vested with a privileged test, a matter alleged in the course of the proceedings need not
character. While Philippine law is silent on the question of be in every case material to the issues presented but should be
whether the doctrine of absolute privilege extends to legitimately related to the issues or be so pertinent to the
statements made in preliminary investigations or other controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the
proceedings preparatory to the actual trial, the U.S. case of course of trial.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Borg v. Boas makes a categorical declaration of the existence of
such protection: cralawHere, the controversial statements were made in the
context of a criminal complaint against petitioner, albeit for
cralawIt is hornbook learning that the actions and other, separate acts involving greed and deceit, and were
utterances in judicial proceedings so far as the disclosed only to the official investigating the complaint.
actual participants therein are concerned and Liberally applying the privileged communication doctrine, these
preliminary steps leading to judicial action of an statements were still relevant to the complaint under
official nature have been given absolute privilege. investigation because, like the averments therein, they also
Of particular interest are proceedings leading up involved petitioners alleged rapacity and deceitfulness.
to prosecutions or attempted prosecutions for WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED and the
crime xxx [A] written charge or information filed September 13, 2002 decision and November 21, 2002 resolution
with the prosecutor or the court is not libelous of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71189 AFFIRMED.
although proved to be false and unfounded. Costs against petitioner.
Furthermore, the information given to a prosecutor FIRST DIVISION
by a private person for the purpose of initiating a
prosecution is protected by the same cloak of
ANNIE FERMIN, a.k.a. G.R. No. 147977 Lachica, Naty Lachica, Manuel Lagartera, Juliano Landisen,
ANITA SAGACO, and Maximino Lapid, Silvestre Lorenzo, Timoteo Lubusan
AURELIO LEO KIGIS, Present: (Dapnisan), Helen Matale, Soledad Nabunat, Damian Peera,
Petitioners, Eliseo Pidazo, Pablito Sacpa, Ananao Santos, Esteban Santos,
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,cralaw Juanito Santos, and Samson Santos (Arizo, et al.). The case
CARPIO, was docketed as Civil Case No. 925-R.
CORONA,
- versus - AZCUNA, and cralawIn a Decision[4] dated 28 June 1991, the Regional Trial
cralaw LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ. Court of Baguio City, Branch 5 (trial court) ruled: