FERMIN vs. PEOPLE Facts: On Facts: On complaint of spouses Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo (Eddie) Gutierrez, two (2) criminal informations for libel were filed against Cristinelli S !ermin and "ogs C #ugas #$e %une &', & $eadline and lead stor* of t$e tabloid sa*s t$atit is improbable for Annabelle Rama to go to t$e +S s$ould it betrue t$at s$e is eading $er coniction in an estafa case $ere in t$e-$ilippines for s$e and $usband Eddie $ae more problems.casesto confront t$ere #$is was said to be due to t$eir, especiall*Annabelle/s, using fellow !ilipinos0 mone*, failure to remit proceedsto t$e manufacturing compan* of t$e coo1ware t$e* were sellingand not being on good terms wit$ t$e latter Annabelle Rama and Eddie Gutierrez Gutierrez filed libel cases against!ermin against!ermin and #ugas before R#C of of C, "r 2&3 R#C4 !ermin and #ugas found guilt* of l ibel CA4 #ugas was ac5uitted on account of non6participation but!ermin/s coniction was affirmed !ermin/s motion for reconsideration was denied S$e argues t$ats$e $ad no 1nowledge and participation in t$e publication of t$earticle, t$at t$e article is not libelous and is coered b* t$e freedomof t$e press Issue: 7$et$er Issue: 7$et$er petitioner is guilt* of libel Held: A Held: A 8ibel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a ice or defect, real or imaginar*, or an* act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause t$e dis$onor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or 9uridical person, or to blac1en t$e memor* of one w$o is dead :n determining w$et$er a statement is defamator*, t$e words used are to be construed in t$eir entiret* and s$ould be ta1en in t$eir plain and ordinar* meaning as t$e* would naturall* be understood b* persons reading t$em, unless it appears t$at t$e* were used and understood in anot$er sense #o sa* t$at t$e article, in its entiret*, is not libelous disturbs one/s sensibilities; it would certainl* pric1 one/s conscience #$ere is eident imputation of t$e crime of malersation, or ices or defects for being fugities from t$e law and of being a wastrel #$e attribution was made publicl*, considering t$at Gossip #abloid $ad a nationwide circulation #$e ictims were identified and identifiable
eit$er can petitioner ta1e refuge in t$e constitutional constitutional guarantee of freedom of speec$ and of t$e press Alt$oug$ a wide latitude latitude is gien to critical critical utterances made against public officials in t$e performance of t$eir official duties, or against public figures on matters of public interest, suc$ criticism does not automaticall* fall wit$in t$e ambit of constitutionall* protected speec$ :f t$e utterances are false, malicious, or unrelated to a public officer/s performance of $is duties or irreleant to matters of public interest inoling public figures, t$e same ma* gie rise to criminal and ciil liabilit* 7$ile complainants are considered public figures for being personalities in t$e entertainment business, media people,
including gossip and intrigue writers suc$ as petitioner, do not $ae t$e unbridled license to malign t$eir $onor and dignit* b* indiscriminatel* airing fabricated and malicious comments, w$et$er in broadcast media or in print, about t$eir personal l ies :n iew of t$e foregoing dis5uisitions, t$e coniction of petitioner for libel s$ould be up$eld 7it$ respect to t$e penalt* to be imposed for t$is coniction, we note t$at t$e Court issued on 2 %anuar* 2??3, Administratie Circular >o ?362??3 entitled Guidelines in t$e Obserance of a Rule of -reference in t$e :mposition of -enalties in 8ibel Cases #$e circular e@presses a preference for t$e imposition of a !:>E rat$er t$an imprisonment, gien t$e circumstances attendant in t$e cases cited t$erein in w$ic$ onl* a fine was imposed b* t$e Court on t$ose conicted of libel :t also states t$at, if t$e penalt* imposed is merel* a fine but t$e conict is unable to pa* t$e same, t$e R-C proisions on subsidiar* imprisonment s$ould appl* oweer, t$e Circular li1ewise allows t$e court, in t$e e@ercise of sound discretion, t$e option to impose imprisonment as penalt*, w$eneer t$e imposition of a fine alone would d epreciate t$e seriousness of t$e offense, wor1 iolence on t$e social order, or ot$erwise be contrar* to t$e imperaties of 9ustice
BUATIS vs. PEOPLE Facts: On August &3, &, t$e wife of priate6complainant Att* %ose % -ieraz (Att* -ieraz), retrieed a letter from t$eir mailbo@ addressed to $er $usband #$e letter was open, not contained in an enelope, and Att* -ieraz0 wife put it on $er $usband0s des1 On t$at same da*, Att* -ieraz came upon t$e letter and made out its content >ot personall* 1nowing w$o t$e sender was, Att* -ieraz, neert$eless, responded and sent a communication b* registered mail to said "uatis, %r w$o dispatc$ed a second letter later on Reacting to t$e insulting words used b* "uatis, %r, particularl*4 BS atan, senile, stupid, EDnglis$ carabao,B Att* -ieraz filed a complaint for libel against accused6appellant Sub9ect letter and its contents came to t$e 1nowledge not onl* of $is wife but of $is c$ildren as well and t$e* all c$ided $im telling $im4 BGinagawa ka lang gago ditoB Issue: 7$et$er accused is guilt* of libel Held: Article of t$e Reised -enal Code defines libel as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a ice or defect, real or imaginar*, or an* act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause t$e dis$onor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or 9uridical person, or to blac1en t$e memor* of one w$o is dead !or an imputation to be libelous, t$e following re5uisites must concur4 (a) it must be defamator*; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be gien publicit*; and (d) t$e ictim must be identifiable 3 #$e last two elements $ae been dul* establis$ed b* t$e prosecution #$ere is publication in t$is case :n libel, publication means ma1ing t$e defamator* matter, after it is written, 1nown to someone ot$er t$an t$e person against w$om it $as been written -etitioner0s sub9ect letter6repl* itself states t$at t$e same was cop* furnis$ed to all concerned Also, petitioner $ad dictated t$e letter to $is secretar* :t is enoug$ t$at t$e aut$or of t$e libel complained of $as communicated it to a t$ird person &? !urt$ermore, t$e letter, w$en found in t$e mailbo@, was open, not contained in an enelope t$us, open to public #$e ictim of t$e libelous letter was identifiable as t$e sub9ect letter6repl* was addressed to respondent $imself 7e s$all t$en resole t$e issues raised b* petitioner as to w$et$er t$e imputation is defamator* and malicious :n determining w$et$er a statement is defamatory, t$e words used are to be construed in t$eir entiret* and s$ould be ta1en in t$eir plain, natural and ordinar* meaning as t$e* would naturall* be understood b* persons reading t$em, unless it appears t$at t$e* were used and understood in anot$er sense && !or t$e purpose of determining t$e meaning of an* publ ication alleged to be libelous, we laid down t$e rule in Jimenez v. Reyes, to wit4 :n #awne* s Simonson, 7$itcomb F urle* Co (&?
:n appl*ing t$ese rules to t$e language of an alleged libel, t$e court will disregard an* subtle or ingenious e@planation offered b* t$e publis$er on being called to account #$e w$ole 5uestion being t$e effect t$e publication $ad upon t$e minds of t$e readers, and t$e* not $aing been assisted b* t$e offered e@planation in reading t$e article, it comes too late to $ae t$e effect of remoing t$e sting, if an* t$ere be, from t$e words used in t$e publication Gauging from t$e aboementioned tests, t$e words used in t$e letter dated August &3, & sent b* petitioner to respondent is defamator* :n using words suc$ as Bl ous*B, BinutileB, Bcarabao Englis$B, Bstupidit*B, and BsatanB, t$e letter, as it was written, casts aspersion on t$e c$aracter, integrit* and reputation of respondent as a law*er w$ic$ e@posed $im to ridicule >o eidence aliunde need be adduced to proe it As t$e CA said, t$ese er* words of petitioner $ae caused respondent to public ridicule a s een $is own famil* $ae told $im4 BGinagawa ka lang gago ditoB An* of t$e imputations coered b* Article is defamator*; and, under t$e general rule laid down in Article ', eer* defamator* imputation is presumed to be malicious, een if it be true, if no good intention and 9ustifiable motie for ma1ing it is s$own #$us, w$en t$e imputation is defamator*, t$e prosecution need not proe malice on t$e part of petitioner (malice in fact), for t$e law alread* presumes t$at petitioner0s imputation is malicious (malice in law) & A reading of petitioner0s sub9ect letter6repl* s$owed t$at $e maleolentl* castigated respondent for writing suc$ a demand letter to
Magno v. People !acts4 :n t$e afternoon of o 33?'6R
Eidentl* apprised b* t$e police of t$e complaint t$us filed b* Cerelito, Holores, in t$e morning of
At around &242? pm of t$e same da*,
#$e first letter, unsigned and undated and written on *ellow pad, was addressed to spouses Cerelito and !e Ale9andro uoted, in part, in t$e information in Criminal Cas e >o 33?I6R, t$is unsigned letter reads4
J:f *our $usband can/t s$ow an* proof of $is ma1ating dila t$en compl* F if *our $usband can/t understand t$is simple Englis$ da$il mangmang, da*u1do1 na galing sa isang 1a$ig isang tu1ang pamil*a at walang pinagaralan, illiterate, mal educado 1a*a bastos e$ $uag na ni*a 1aming idama* sa 1ani*ang 1atanga$an na alam na traba$o e$ $umawa1 ng grasa sa SaudiKa*a i*ong pambabastos mo at pagdudumi ni*a sa pangalan naming at $igit pa si*ang marumi at putang ina rin ni*aGaling si*a sa p ng babo* at $indi sa p ng taouag ni*ang i1umpara ang pinangalingan ni*a sa pinangalingan naminSi*a ang magnana1aw at mandara*a
mambintang ng 1apitba$a* nin*o, tignan nin*o muna ang sarili nin*o
#$e second letter is a p$oto6cop* of t$e first, but wit$ t$e following addendum written in in1 at t$e ba c1 page t$ereof w$ic$ reads4
JAng tiba* mo rin naman
#$e t$ird letter, a p$otocop* of Holores0 signed letter dated
#$e Sub Station Commander Sub6Station
Hear sir4
cralaw @@@@@@@@@
Allow me t$en to e@plain to *ou w$* : call
:t is upon t$e foregoing factual bac1drop t$at Holores was c$arged wit$ libel under four (') separate informations filed wit$ t$e Regional #rial Court of "aguio Cit*, doc1eted as Criminal Cases >o 33?6R, 33?'6R, 33?6R and 33?I6R and raffled to "ranc$ I of t$e court
+pon arraignment, Holores, as accused, entered a plea of >ot Guilt* to eac$ of t$e offenses c$arges in t$e four informations aforecited !ollowing a 9oint trial, t$e trial court rendered 9udgment on September 2, &, finding $er guilt* of libel in bot$ C riminal Cases >os 33?'6R and 33?I6R and sentencing $er to suffer imprisonment and ordering $er to indemnif* t$e offended part* a certain sum as moral damages :n Criminal Cases >os 33?6R and 33?6R, $oweer, s$e was ac5uitted
On Appeal, t$e appellate court affirmed in toto t$e 9udgment of coniction of t$e R#C #$e appellate court li1ewise denied t$e motion for reconsideration of Holores
:ssue4 7$et$er
eld4 #$e Supreme Court $eld t$at to be liable for libel under Article of t$e Reised -enal Code, t$e following elements must be s$own to e@ist4 (a) t$e allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning anot$er; (b) publication of t$e c$arge; (c) identit* of t$e person defamed; and (d) e@istence of malice
#$ere can be no 5uibbling about t$e defamator* nature of t$e written imputation or allegations $urled against Cerelito And t$e derogator* writings were obiousl* made out of ill6will or reenge#$e issue of defamation, malice or t$e identit* of t$e person defamed is not een raised in t$is recourse
As earlier recited, t$e information in Criminal Case >o 33?I6R arose out of w$at Holores wrote about t$e spouses Cerelito and !e Ale9andro contained in an unsealed enelope and deliered, t$roug$ Eel*n Arcartado, on
-ublication, in t$e law of libel, means t$e ma1ing of t$e defamator* matter, after it $as been written, 1nown to someone ot$er t$an t$e person to w$om it $as been written :f t$e statement is sent straig$t to a person for w$om it is written t$ere is no publication of it #$e reason for t$is is t$at /a communication of t$e defamator* matter to t$e person defamed cannot in9ure $is reputation t$oug$ it ma* wound $is self6 esteem A man/s reputation is not t$e good opinion $e $as of $imself, but t$e estimation in w$ic$ ot$ers $old $im
:n %eople vs. $ilvela, t$e Court ruled t$at sending an unsealed libelous letter to t$e offended part* constitutes publication :n t$e present case, t$ere is no dispute t$at t$e unsealed enelope containing t$e libelous letter was $anded b* Holores to Eel*n Arcartado Conte@tuall*, t$ere was a reasonable probabilit* t$at t$e contents of t$e unsealed enelope, particularl* t$e libelous letter, could $ae been e@posed to be read b* Eel*n before deliering t$e same to Cerelito oweer, Eel*n categoricall* admitted not reading t$e letter at t$e first instance, reading it onl* after securing Cerelito/s permission
7riting to a person ot$er t$an t$e person defamed is sufficient to constitute publication, for t$e person to w$om t$e letter is addressed is a t$ird person in relation to its writer and t$e person defamed t$erein !e, t$e wife, is, in conte@t, a t$ird person to w$om t$e publication was made
!inall*, t$e Court cannot gie credence to Holores/ allegation t$at s$e is not t$e aut$or of t$e unsigned libelous letter :t cannot be oerstressed t$at s$e $erself $anded t$e unsigned letter to Eel*n Arcartado wit$ specific instructions to gie t$e same to !e Ale9andro 8i1ewise, t$e contents of t$e letters are basicall* reiteration.elaborations of Holores/ preious writing on t$e wall and $er letter to t$e "C- Sub6 Station commander 7$at t$e Court of Appeals said on t$is point is basic common sense and d esering of acceptance
#$e Supreme Court finds all t$e elements of libel to $ae been sufficientl* establis$ed Accordingl*, t$e ascription of reersible errors on t$e part of t$e CA and t$e trial court in ad9udging Holores guilt* be*ond reasonable doubt of two counts of libel cannot be sustained
=illanuea -eople (GR >o &I?&)
!acts4 -etitioner >oel =illanuea was a member of t$e
Sometime in September &', petitioner was filing an application for monetized leae for t$e approal of $erein complainant #$e application was not immediatel* attended to b* complainant as s$e was t$en bus* dictating some important matters to $er secretar* A $eated argument t$en ensued between t$e complainant and t$e enraged defendant =illanuea :n t$e presence of seeral persons, defendant =illanuea, in a loud oice and wit$in $earing distance of eer*one present, unlawfull*, maliciousl* and feloniousl* uttered in a serious and insulting manner t$e following words4 (Nou are pretending to be clean and $onest *et *ou are not clean and $onest, *ou are corrupt; *ou are li1e a red apple, but inside *ou are worm infested and e@tremel* dirt*)
:ssue4 7$et$er t$e petitioner is guilt* slig$t or serious oral defamation
eld4 -etitioner is guilt* of slig$t oral defamation Sl ander is libel committed b* oral (spo1en) means, instead of in writing #$e term oral defamation or slander as now understood, $as been defined as t$e spea1ing of base and defamator* words w$ic$ tend to pre9udice anot$er in $is reputation, office, trade, business or means of lieli$ood #$ere is grae slander w$en it is of a serious and insulting nature #$e grait* of t$e oral defamation depends not onl* (&) upon t$e e@pressions used, but also (2) on t$e personal relations of t$e accused and t$e offended part*, and () t$e circumstances surrounding t$e case :ndeed, it is a doctrine of ancient respectabilit* t$at defamator* words will fall under one or t$e ot$er, depending not onl* upon t$eir sense, grammatical significance, and accepted ordinar* meaning 9udging t$em separatel*, but also upon t$e special circumstances of t$e case, antecedents or relations$ip between t$e offended part* and t$e offender, w$ic$ mig$t tend to proe t$e intention of t$e offender at t$e time
:n t$e case at bar, as a public official, petitioner, w$o was $olding t$e position of Councilor at t$at time, is $idebound to be an e@emplar to societ* against t$e use of intemperate language particularl* because t$e offended part* was a =ice6
Caal -eople (GR >o &I&3&) !acts4 -etitioner is accused of bringing priate complainant Ha*linda Caal, into discredit, disrepute and contempt w$en $e unlawfull* and publicl* spea1 and utter against $er t$e following insulting words and e@pressions, to wit4 J A-A #( )AHA"!() $A '&$'IG($ NI "A-!IN"A )A- A!A- BAN*AAGAN, NAHA"!() )A )ANG "A-!IN"A, NABUHI I'(N $A %ANGAA', NABUHI I'(N $A %ANGAA' L w$ic$ if translated in Englis$ language will mean (Nou afraid to t$e witness of Ha*linda w$o $ad no $ow, w$* *ou afraid to Ha*linda, s$e lie from stealing, s$e is a long time t$iees) and ot$er words of similar imports :ssue4 7$et$er or not statements of petitioner Caal constitute oral defamationM eld4 Nes #o sa* t$at Ha*linda is a t$ief is irrefragabl* grae oral defamation #$is imputes to $er a crime t$at is dis$onorable or contemptuous :t must be remembered t$at eer* defamator* imputation is presumed to be malicious, een if it be true, if no good intention and 9ustifiable motie for ma1ing it is s$own And malice ma* be inferred from t$e st*le and tone of publication sub9ect to certain e@ceptions w$ic$ are not present in t$e case at bar :ndeed, calling Ha*linda a t$ief is defamation against $er c$aracter and reputation sufficient to cause $er embarrassment and social $umiliation
-ader -eople (GR >o &&P) !acts4 On April 2?, &, at about 34?? pm, Att* "en9amin C Es colango was conersing wit$ $is political leaders at t$e terrace of $is $ouse at
8one* s -eople !acts4 #$is is a petition for reiew of t$e Hecision dated >oember 2??& and t$e Resolution dated &' oember 2??& Hecision affirmed t$e ruling of t$e Regional #rial Court, "oac,
Abuea s -eople !acts4 -etitioner #eofilo Abuea * Cagasan was c$arged before t$e Regional #rial Court of Haao Cit*, in an information of Rec1less :mprudence resulting in $omicide for t$e deat$ of 8ourdes GR+"A> fell down to t$e cemented paement of t$e terminal road and sustained t$e in9uries w$ic$ caused $er deat$ #$e facts s$owed t$at t$e ictim, 8ourdes ot onl* must $e ma1e sure t$at t$e* reac$ t$eir destinations on time, $e must also ensure t$eir safet* w$ile t$e* are boarding, during t$e entire trip, and upon disembar1ing from t$e e$icle aing failed to e@ercise due diligence t$at resulted in t$e tragic incident, petitioners liabilit* for t$e deat$ of passenger 8ourdes
