TITLE 13-CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Section 1-Definition, 1-Definition, forms and punishment of the crime 1. 2. 3.
Art. Art. 353 – Defini Definitio tion n of libe libell Art. 354 – Requireme Requirement nt for for publicit publicity y Art. 355 – Libel by means means of writings writings or similar similar means means (provides (provides penalty penalty for libel) 4. Art. 356 – Threaten Threatening ing to publish publish and offer offer to prevent prevent such publica publication tion for compensation 5. Art. Art. 357 – Prohib Prohibite ited d public publicati ation on of acts referre referred d to in the course course of official proceedings 6. Art. Art. 358 358 - Sla Sland nder er
Art 353 – Definition of Libel “Libel” is a defamation committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving engraving,, radio, radio, phonograp phonograph, h, paiting paiting or theatrica theatricall or cinematog cinematographi raphic c exhibition exhibition,, or any similar similar meanrs. On the other hand, “oral defamation defamation”” is called slander. Note: seditious libel is punished in Art 142 (Inciting to sedition) since in this article, it punishes all kids of attack of attack against honor and reputation Purpose of Article 353 Enjoyment of a private reputation is as much as a constitutional right as the possession of life, liberty or property. property . Elements of Defamation 1. That there must be an imputation of a A) crime, crime, or of a B) vice or defect or defect , real real or imagin imaginary ary , or C) any act, act, omissi omission, on, condit condition ion,, status status or circumstance. circumstance. 2. That the imputation must be made publicly. 3. That it must be malicious. 4. That the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead . 5. That the imputation must tend to cause the A) dishonor, B) discredit or C) contempt of the person defamed. [ D) to blacken the memory of one who is dead ]
A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person against whom they were uttered was guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach his honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold him up to public ridicule. Notes: 1. The The meani meaning ng of the the write writerr is IMMA IMMATERI TERIAL AL;; whate whateve verr he/sh he/she e may have intended should not be considered. What is considered is: the meaning of that the words in fact conveyed on the minds of persons of reasonable unders understan tandin ding, g, discre discretio tion n and candor candor,, taking taking into into consid considera eratio tion n the surrounding circumstances which were known to the hearer or reader. 2.
Impu Imputtati ation of cri crimi mina nall in inten tention tion is not libelous
3. Expr Expres essi sion on of opi opini nion on (one (one whi which ch is is based based on on actua actuall fact fact)) is NOT NOT libelous IF the communication is made in the performance of a “legal, moral or social duty.” duty.”
Art 354 – Requirement for Publicity “Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, malicious , even if it to be true, true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown , except in the following cases: cases : 1. Priv Privat ate e comm commun unic icat atio ion n made made by any any pers person on to ano anoth ther er in the the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty. 2. A fai fairr and and true true rep repor ort, t, mad made e in goo good d fait faith, h, wit witho hout ut any any com comme ment nts s or rema remark rks, s, of any any judi judici cial al,, legi legisl slat ativ ive, e, or othe otherr offi offici cial al procee proceedin dings gs which which are not of confi confiden dentia tiall nature 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.” Presumption of malice is rebutted, if it is shown by the accused that: (a) (a) the the defam efamat ator ory y impu imputa tati tion on is true, true, in case the law allows proof of the truth of the imputation (b) it is published with good intention (c) there is justifiable motive for making it PAR. 1 , ART. 354 Two kinds of privileged communications (wherein malice is not presumed) 1) Abs Absolut olute e it is not actionable even if its author acted in bad faith i.e. i.e. statem statement ents s made made by member members s of Congre Congress ss in the discharge of their functions as such, official communications •
TEST OF DEFAMATORY DEFAMATORY CHARACTER OF THE WORDS USED
•
made by public officers in the performance of their duties, etc. (eve (even n thos those e in judi judici cial al proc procee eedi ding ngs s by lawy lawyer ers s themselves Malit vs. People) People) 2) Condit Condition ional al or Qual Qualifi ified ed Would not be actionable unless author was in bad faith If malice is shown, it CAN BE ACTIONABLE • •
Art 356 – Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation Acts punished: 1. By threatening another threatening another to publish to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child, or other members of his family. family. 2. By offering to prevent the prevent the publication of such libel for compensation for compensation,, or money or money consideration
Purpose for the Doctrine of Privileged Communication The right of the individual individual to enjoy enjoy immunity immunity from publicat publication ion of untruthful charges derogatory to his character is not absolute and must at times yield to the superior necessity of subjecting to investigation the conduct of persons charged with wrongdoing. wrongdoing.
Blackmail defined: - any unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure
PAR. 2 , ART. 354 Fair and true report of official proceedings In order that the publication of a report of an official proceeding may be considered privileged, the following conditions must exist: a) that it is a fair and fair and true report of a judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are NOT of confidential nature, or of a statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by a public officer in the exercise of his functions b) it is made in good faith c) it is without any comments or remarks
Art 357 – Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings
Art 355 – Libel by means of writings or similar means A libel may be committed by means of: 1. Writing 2. Printing 3. Lithography 4. En Engraving 5. Radio
6. Phonograph 7. Painting 8. Theatrical exhibition 9. Ci Cinematographic ex exhibition 10. Or any similar means
note: defamation defamation through amplifier amplifier (speaker (speaker system) system) is not libel, libel, but oral defamation. Oral defamation in a television program is libel since it falls under “or any similar means” PENALTY PENALTY is given in this article (PC in its min and med periods)
In what felonies is blackmail possible? 1. Light threats (Art. 283) 2. Threat Threateni ening ng to publis publish h and offer offer to preven preventt such such public publicati ation on for a compensation (Art. 356)
------------------------- Constitutes the so-called “Gag Law”-----------------------------Elements 1. Offender Offender is a reporter reporter,, editor, editor, or manager manager of a newsp newspape aperr daily daily or magazine. 2. That he publishes facts connected with the private life of another. 3. That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person note: elements 2 and 3 must concur OR concur OR ELSE there is no violation ©Cases Malit vs. People 114 SCRA 348: May 31, 1982- Petitioner Malit was counsel of a certain Ruth Fernandez in an administrative case filed against her by a Dr. Macaspac. On cross examination by Malit stated “I doubt how did you become a doctor” because Dr. Macaspac would not understand the word “made.” Hence, Dr. Macaspac filed a complaint for slander (but an information for UNJUST VEXATION was filed). SC SAID: Well settled rule that parties, counsel and witnesses are exempted from from liabil liability ity from from libel libel or slande slanderr cases cases for words words otherw otherwise ise defamatory, defamatory, uttered or published in the course of judicial proceedings, provided the statements are pertinent or relevant to the case.
DOCTRINE: Utterance Utterances s made in the course of judicial judicial or administr administrative ative proceeding proceedings s belong belong to the class of communic communication ations s that are absolutely privileged. privileged. Mercado vs. CFI 116 SCRA 93 August 25, 1982 1982 - A telegram (by Rafael Mercado) addressed addressed to a superior superior officer (Sec. David Consunji; Dep. Of Public Works and Communications) asked to investigate private respondent Virginia Virginia Mercado’s Mercado’s assets assets since since the letter alleged alleged that she has enriched herself thru corrupt practices (since her husband was jobless and she had assets which her salary could not possibly afford). SC SAID: United States vs. Bustos – a qualified privilege maybe “lost by proof of malice”; qualified privilege - > complaint made in good faith and without malice in regard to the character or conduct of a public official when addressed to an officer or a board having some interest or duty in the matter. Case at bar: what casts doubt on the good faith of petitioner is his tenacity with which he had pursued a course of conduct on its face would seem to indicated that a doubt could reasonably be entertained (even if Virginia had proven to be innocent of the “charges” against her) DOCTRINE: Qualified privileges can be lost by proof of malice; letters to a board or superior officer are only qualified privileges •
•
Agbayani vs. Sayo 89 SCRA 699 April 30, 1979 - Mahinan filed a complaint of libel libel agains againstt his subordin subordinate ates s in GSIS GSIS (Agbay (Agbayani ani et al) for making making documents that allegedly depicted him as “an incorrigible managerial misfit, despoiler despoiler of public public office, office, spendthri spendthrift ft of GSIS funds, inveterat inveterate e gambler gambler,, chronic falsifier and an unreformed convict” SC: Mahinan cannot file his case in CFI of Nueva Viscaya since he was stationed in Isabela where the alleged libel was committed. •
•
DOCTRINE: Actions for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed in the courts within the province or city where the libelous libelous article is printed and first published (regardless of where it was written) or where the offended parties actually reside at the time of the commission of the offense. Newsweek vs. IAC 142 SCRA 171 May 30, 1986- Private respondents, incorporat incorporated ed associati associations ons of sugarcane sugarcane planters, planters, filed filed a libel libel suit against Newsweek Newsweek for its article which portrayed portrayed Negros Negros Occidenta Occidentall as a place place dominated by sugarcane planters who exploited workers and brutalized them with impunity. SC:
1. Complainants Complainants have no cause of action action for it made no allegation allegation that anything contained in the article referred to specifically to any one of them. In identifiable. order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable. 2. Defamator Defamatory y remarks remarks directed directed at a group of persons persons is not not actionable actionable UNLESS UNLESS the statement statements s are all-embrac all-embracing ing or sufficien sufficiently tly specific specific for victim to be identifiable. identifiable. Lacsa vs. IAC 161 SCRA 427 May 23, 1988 1988 - Lacsa was a CPA and a member member of the Board Board of Direc Director tors s of the Phil. Phil. Colum Columbia bian n Associ Associati ation; on; complainant is Ponciano Marquez (President of Board). Lacsa had access to the records of its members and he discovered that Marquez was a mere associate associate member of the associati association. on. Hence, Hence, he questione questioned d Marquez’ Marquez’s s qualifications and wrote a letter to letter to the Board (and even to Marquez; which was later published and circulated to the members) “branded” Marquez as a DE FACTO president. SC: 1. Test est of libe libelo lous us mean meanin ing g is NOT NOT the the anal analys ysis is of of a sent senten ence ce into into component phrases with the meticulous care of the grammarian or stylist, but the import conveyed by the entirety of the language to the ordinary reader . 2. Even if the letter is a privileged communication, communication , it lost its character as such when the matter was published in the newsletter and circulated among the members. members. 3. No good good fait faith h since since it was was his irre irresp spon onsi sibl ble e act of lett letter er writ writin ing g to expose his alleged discovery of what he perceived to be an anomaly without the verification which ordinary prudence demands. Soriano vs. IAC 167 SCRA 222 November 9, 1988 1988 - Chairman of the COA Franci Francis s Tantuic antuico o filed filed a libel libel suit suit agains againstt Sorian Soriano o for imputi imputing ng that that he tampered election returns in the 84 elections. Soriano (editor) and 6 others were employees of THE GUARDIAN (newspaper) which published an article alleging such. SC: 1. “Mul “Multi tipl ple e publ public icat atio ion” n” rule rule – eac each h and and ever every y publ public icat atio ion n of the the same same libel constitutes a distinct offense 2. The editor/business manager of a daily newspaper or magazine shall be responsible for the defamation contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author himself . 3. As the respon responden dentt held held office office in QC and and that that the offend offending ing newspa newspaper per is published in QC, the case should be filed in a QC court. Bulletin Publishing Corp. vs. Noel 167 SCRA 255 November 9, 1988 - 21 alleged relatives of the late Amir Mindalano (in behalf of him and their clan) filed a complaint (LIBEL) against petitioner for the article by Jamil Flores which appeared in an issue of the Philippine Panorama. Panorama.
SC: 1. The identif identifica icatio tion n of Amir Mindalan Mindalano o is thus thus merely merely illustra illustrativ tive e or incidenta incidentall to the course of the development development of the theme of the article. article. Language of the article appeals simply declaratory or expository in character, matter-of-fact and unemotional in tone and tenor. No derogatory or derisive implications. Santos vs. CA 203 SCRA 110 October 21, 1991 - Santos, as a columnist of then Manila Daily Bulletin wrote in his weekly column a quoted statement from an unverified complaint filed w/ the SEC (by Rosario Sandejas charging CMS Stock Brokerage Inc. particularly priv resp). He was then charged of libel as well as other employees of t he newspaper. SC: 1. Malice is presumed in every defamatory imputation but does not arise if the communication is privileged under Art. 354. 2. The The publ publis ishe hed d arti articl cle e is pri privi vile lege ged, d, bei being ng a fai fairr and and true true rep repor ortt of a judic judicial ial procee proceedin ding, g, witho without ut comme comments nts or remark remarks, s, and theref therefore ore not punishable since it was a faithful reproduction of a pleading filed before a quasi-judicial body. body. Sazon vs. CA 255 SCRA 692 March 29, 1996 1996 - Sazon was the editor of the monthly newsletter of the Parang Bagong Lipunan Community Association Inc. (association of home owners). The association held an election for the members of its board and among those who ran is complainant. Pet lost, comp compla lain inan antt lost lost.. Unab Unable le to acce accept pt defe defeat at,, he wrot wrote e to the the Esta Estate te Management Office protesting the election of the petitioner; wrote to the other home owners asking them not to recognize petitioner’s status. Afterwards, numerous leaflets were spread ridiculing Sazon. In response, Sazon started writing and circulating newsletters referring to complainant (hence complaint) SC: 1. It is is not not the the que quest stio ion n of what what the the off offen ende derr mean meantt but but what the words used by him meant/conveyed. 2. When When the the imp imput utat atio ion n is defa defama mato tory ry,, the the prose prosecu cuti tion on need need not not prov prove e malice on the part of the defendant (for there is a presumption of malice Art 354). 3. News Newsle lett tter er WAS WAS NOT NOT PRIV PRIVIL ILEG EGED ED COMM COMMUN UNIC ICA ATION TION sinc since e the the readers (homeowners) were not vested with the power of supervision over the private complainant or the authority to investigate the charges made against the latter. Moreover, Moreover, a written written letter letter containi containing ng libelous libelous matter matter cannot be classified classified as privileged privileged when it is published published and circulated circulated among thepublic. 4. Any Any atta attack ck upo upon n the the priv privat ate e char charac acte terr of the the pub publi lic c offi office cer r on on matters which are not related to the discharge of their official functions MAY constitute libel. libel.
Vasquez vs. CA Sept. 15, 1999 September 15, 1999 - Vasquez is a resident of the Tondo Foreshore Area. After going to the National House Authority to follow follow up on their their compl complain aintt agains againstt their their Barang Barangay ay captai captain n (herei (herein n complainant OLDMEDO), he was interviewed by newspaper reporters. In the article released by Ang by Ang Tinig ng Masa, Masa, he stated that Olmedo was corrupt and the source of their problems regarding the land disputes. Hence, Olmedo filed a complaint for libel. SC: 1. Vasqu asque ez cann canno ot clai claim m to have have bee been n the the sour sourc ce of only only a few few statements in the article and point to the other parties as the source of the rest rest sinc since e he admi admitt tted ed that that he was was corr correc ectly tly iden identi tifi fied ed as the the spokesperson of the families during the interview. 2. Unde Underr Art. Art. 361, 361, if the the def defam amat ator ory y stat statem emen entt is made made aga again inst st a pub publi lic c official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and truth truth of the allega allegatio tion n is shown shown,, the accused accused will be entitl entitled ed to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. ends. Case at bar: he did prove that what he said was INDEED true. DOCTRINE: Even if the defamatory statement is FALSE, no liability can attach attach if it relate relates s to offici official al conduc conduct, t, unless unless the public public offici official al concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice. malice .
Art 358 – Slander What is slander? Slander is oral defamation Two Kinds of oral defamation 1. Simple slander 2. Grave slander, when it is of a serious and insulting nature Factors that determine the gravity of oral defamation 1. The expressions used. 2. The personal relations of the accused and the offended party. 3. The circumstances surrounding the case. Note: slander need slander need not be heard by the offended party.
