108 OG No. 2, 137 (January 9, 2012)
Freedom of expression enjoys an exalted place in
the hierarchy of constitutional rights. Free expression however, "is
not absolute for it may be so regulated that [its exercise shall
neither] be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal
rights, nor injurious to the rights of the community or society."
[1] Libel stands as an exception to the enjoyment of that most guarded constitutional right.
Before the Court is a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Dionisio Lopez (petitioner) assailing the Decision
[2] dated August 31, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 28175. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision
[3]
rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cadiz City, Branch 60
finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of libel.
Procedural and Factual Antecedents On
April 3, 2003, petitioner was indicted for libel in an Information
dated March 31, 2003, the accusatory portion of which reads in full as
follows:
That on or about the early part of November
2002 in the City of Cadiz, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the herein accused did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously with intent to impeach the integrity,
reputation and putting to public ridicule and dishonor the offended
party MAYOR SALVADOR G. ESCALANTE, JR., City Mayor of Cadiz City and
with malice and intent to injure and expose the said offended party to
public hatred, contempt and ridicule put up billboards/signboards at the
fence of Cadiz Hotel, Villena Street, Cadiz City and at Gustilo
Boulevard, Cadiz City, which billboards/signboards read as follows:
"CADIZ FOREVER"
"______________ NEVER"
thereby
deliberately titillating the curiosity of and drawing extraordinary
attention from the residents of Cadiz City and passers-by over what
would be placed before the word "NEVER". Later on November 15, 2002,
accused affixed the nickname of the herein private complainant "BADING"
and the name of the City of "SAGAY" before the word "NEVER" thus making
the billboard appear as follows
"CADIZ FOREVER"
"BADING AND SAGAY NEVER"
For
which the words in the signboards/billboards were obviously calculated
to induce the readers/passers-by to suppose and understand that
something fishy was going on, therefore maliciously impeaching the
honesty, virtue and reputation of Mayor Salvador G. Escalante, Jr., and
hence were highly libelous, offensive and defamatory to the good name,
character and reputation of the offended party and his office and that
the said billboards/signboards were read by thousands if not hundred[s]
of thousands of persons, which caused damage and prejudice to the
offended party by way of moral damages in the amount [of]:
P5,000,000.00 - as moral damages.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Upon
arraignment on May 8, 2003, petitioner, as accused, entered a plea of
"not guilty." During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated, among
others, on the identity of the accused, that the private complainant is
the incumbent City Mayor of Cadiz City and is popularly known by the
nickname "Bading" and that the petitioner calls the private complainant
"Bading." Thenceforth, trial on the merits commenced in due course.
Evidence
introduced for the prosecution reveals that in the early part of
November 2002, while exercising his official duties as Mayor of Cadiz
City, private respondent saw billboards with the printed phrase "CADIZ
FOREVER" with a blank space before the word "NEVER" directly under said
phrase. Those billboards were posted on the corner of Gustilo and
Villena streets, in front of Cadiz Hotel and beside the old Coca-Cola
warehouse in Cadiz City. He became intrigued and wondered on what the
message conveyed since it was incomplete.
Some days later, on
November 15, 2002, private respondent received a phone call relating
that the blank space preceding the word "NEVER" was filled up with the
added words "BADING AND SAGAY." The next day, he saw the billboards
with the phrase "CADIZ FOREVER BADING AND SAGAY NEVER" printed in full.
Reacting and feeling that he was being maligned and dishonored with the
printed phrase and of being a "
tuta" of Sagay, private
respondent, after consultation with the City Legal Officer, caused the
filing of a complaint for libel against petitioner. He claimed that the
incident resulted in mental anguish and sleepless nights for him and his
family. He thus prayed for damages.
Jude Martin Jaropillo
(Jude) is a licensing officer of the Permit and License Division of
Cadiz City. While on a licensing campaign, he was able to read the
message on the billboards. He wondered what fault the person alluded
therein has done as the message is so negative. He felt that the
message is an insult to the mayor since it creates a negative
impression, as if he was being rejected by the people of Cadiz City. He
claimed that he was giving his testimony voluntarily and he was not
being rewarded, coerced or forced by anybody.
Nenita Bermeo
(Nenita), a retired government employee of Cadiz City, was at Delilah's
Coffee [Shop] in the morning of November 19, 2002 when she heard the
petitioner shouting "Bading, Bading, Never, Never." She and the tricycle
drivers drinking coffee were told by petitioner "You watch out I will
add larger billboards." When she went around Cadiz City, she saw larger
billboards with the phrase "CADIZ FOREVER BADING AND SAGAY NEVER," thus
confirming what petitioner had said. With the message, she felt as if
the people were trying to disown the private respondent. According to
her, petitioner has an ax to grind against the mayor. Like Jude, she
was not also forced or rewarded in giving her testimony.
Bernardita
Villaceran (Bernardita) also found the message unpleasant because Mayor
Escalante is an honorable and dignified resident of Cadiz City.
According to her, the message is an insult not only to the person of the
mayor but also to the people of Cadiz City.
Petitioner admitted
having placed all the billboards because he is aware of all the things
happening around Cadiz City. He mentioned "BADING" because he was not
in conformity with the many things the mayor had done in Cadiz City. He
insisted that he has no intention whatsoever of referring to "Bading"
as the "
Tuta" of Sagay. He contended that it was private respondent who referred to Bading as "
Tuta"
of Sagay. He further maintained that his personal belief and
expression was that he will never love Bading and Sagay. He concluded
that the message in the billboards is just a wake-up call for Cadiz
City.
Ruling of the Regional Trial CourtOn
December 17, 2003, the RTC rendered judgment convicting petitioner of
libel. The trial court ruled that from the totality of the evidence
presented by the prosecution vìs-a-vìs that of the defense, all the
elements of libel are present. The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds accused DIONISIO LOPEZ y
ABERASTURI (bonded) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Libel defined and penalized under Article 353 in relation to Article 355
of the Revised Penal Code and there being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances attendant thereto hereby sentences him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of FOUR MONTHS AND TWENTY DAYS of
Arresto Mayor maximum as the minimum to TWO YEARS, ELEVEN MONTHS AND TEN
DAYS of Prision Correccional Medium as the maximum and a FINE of
P5,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The accused is further ordered to pay the private complainant the sum of P5,000,000.00 by way of moral damages.
The
cash bond posted by the accused is hereby ordered cancelled and
returned to the accused, however the penalty of Fine adjudged against
the accused is hereby ordered deducted from the cash bond posted by the
accused pursuant to Section 22 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court and the
remaining balance ordered returned to the accused. The accused is
hereby ordered immediately committed to the BJMP, Cadiz City for the
service of his sentence.
Cost against the accused.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Ruling of the Court of AppealsPetitioner
appealed the Decision of the RTC to the CA which, as stated earlier,
rendered judgment on August 31, 2005, affirming with modification the
Decision of the RTC. Like the trial court, the appellate court found
the presence of all the elements of the crime of libel. It reduced
however, the amount of moral damages to P500,000.00. Petitioner then
filed his Motion for Reconsideration, which the appellate court denied
in its Resolution
[6] dated April 7, 2006.
Disgruntled, petitioner is now before us
via the instant petition. Per our directive, private respondent filed his Comment
[7]
on August 29, 2006 while the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
representing public respondent People of the Philippines, submitted a
Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment
[8]
on even date. After the filing of petitioner's Reply to private
respondent's Comment, we further requested the parties to submit their
respective memoranda. The OSG filed a Manifestation in Lieu of
Memorandum, adopting as its memorandum, the Manifestation and Motion in
Lieu of Comment it earlier filed. Petitioner and private respondent
submitted their respective memoranda as required.
Issues
Petitioner raised the following arguments in support of his petition:
I
WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE WORDS "CADIZ FOREVER[,] BADING AND SAGAY NEVER"
CONTAINED IN THE BILLBOARDS/SIGNBOARDS SHOW THE INJURIOUS NATURE OF THE
IMPUTATIONS MADE AGAINST THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND TENDS TO INDUCE
SUSPICION ON HIS CHARACTER, INTEGRITY AND REPUTATION AS MAYOR OF CADIZ
CITY.
II
ASSUMING WITHOUT CONCEDING THAT THE WORDS "CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER"
CONTAINED IN THE BILLBOARDS ERECTED BY PETITIONER ARE DEFAMATORY, DID
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN NOT HOLDING THAT THEY COMPRISE FAIR
COMMENTARY ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH ARE THEREFORE PRIVILEGED?
III
WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF MALICE IN THE CASE AT BAR HAS NOT BEEN OVERTHROWN.
IV
WHETHER
X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING PETITIONER OF THE
CHARGE OF LIBEL AND IN HOLDING HIM LIABLE FOR MORAL DAMAGES IN THE
AMOUNT OF P500,000.[9]
Summed
up, the focal issues tendered in the present petition boil down to the
following: 1) whether the printed phrase "CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND
SAGAY NEVER" is libelous; and 2) whether the controversial words used
constituted privileged communication.
Our Ruling
We ought to reverse the CA ruling.
At the outset, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on
certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The factual findings of the lower
courts are final and conclusive and are not reviewable by this Court,
unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions:
- When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;
- When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
- Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
- When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
- When the findings of fact are conflicting;
- When
the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of
the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant
and appellee;
- When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
- When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
- When
the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main
and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and,
- When
the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[10]
Indeed,
the CA affirmed the factual findings of the RTC that all the elements
of the crime of libel are present in this case. Thus, following the
general rule, we are precluded from making further evaluation of the
factual antecedents of the case. However, we cannot lose sight of the
fact that both lower courts have greatly misapprehended the facts in
arriving at their unanimous conclusion. Hence, we are constrained to
apply one of the exceptions specifically paragraph 4 above, instead of
the general rule.
Petitioner takes exception to the CA's ruling
that the controversial phrase "CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER"
tends to induce suspicion on private respondent's character, integrity
and reputation as mayor of Cadiz City. He avers that there is nothing
in said printed matter tending to defame and induce suspicion on the
character, integrity and reputation of private respondent.
The
OSG, in its Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment, asserts that
"there is nothing in the phrase "CADIZ FOREVER" and "BADING AND SAGAY
NEVER" which ascribe to private respondent any crime, vice or defect, or
any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which will either
dishonor, discredit, or put him into contempt."
[11]The
prosecution maintains that the appellate court correctly sustained the
trial court's finding of guilt on petitioner. Citing well-established
jurisprudence
[12] holding that "[w]ords calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective
to
destroy reputation than false charges directly made" and that
"[i]ronical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander,"
it argued that the words printed on the billboards somehow bordered on
the incomprehensible and the ludicrous yet they were so deliberately
crafted solely to induce suspicion and cast aspersion against private
respondent's honor and reputation.
A 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 the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or
juridicial person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead."
[13]
"For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must
concur: a) it must be defamatory; b) it must be malicious; c) it must be
given publicity and d) the victim must be identifiable."
[14] Absent one of these elements precludes the commission of the crime of libel.
Although
all the elements must concur, the defamatory nature of the subject
printed phrase must be proved first because this is so vital in a
prosecution for libel. Were the words imputed not defamatory in
character, a libel charge will not prosper. Malice is necessarily
rendered immaterial.
An allegation is considered defamatory if it
ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition,
status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him
in contempt or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. To
determine "whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be
construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural
and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons
reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in
another sense."
[15] Moreover,
"[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 the honesty, virtue or reputation or to hold the person or
persons up to public ridicule."
[16]Tested
under these established standards, we cannot subscribe to the appellate
court's finding that the phrase "CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER"
tends to induce suspicion on private respondent's character, integrity
and reputation as mayor of Cadiz City. There are no derogatory
imputations of a crime, vice or defect or any act, omission, condition,
status or circumstance tending, directly or indirectly, to cause his
dishonor. Neither does the phrase in its entirety, employ any
unpleasant language or somewhat harsh and uncalled for that would
reflect on private respondent's integrity. Obviously, the controversial
word "NEVER" used by petitioner was plain and simple. In its ordinary
sense, the word did not cast aspersion upon private respondent's
integrity and reputation much less convey the idea that he was guilty of
any offense. Simply worded as it was with nary a notion of corruption
and dishonesty in government service, it is our considered view to
appropriately consider it as mere epithet or personal reaction on
private respondent's performance of official duty and not purposely
designed to malign and besmirch his reputation and dignity more so to
deprive him of public confidence.
Indeed, the prosecution
witnesses were able to read the message printed in the billboards and
gave a negative impression on what it says. They imply that the message
conveys something as if the private respondent was being rejected as
city mayor of Cadiz. But the trustworthiness of these witnesses is
doubtful considering the moral ascendancy exercised over them by the
private respondent such that it is quite easy for them to draw such
negative impression. As observed by the OSG, at the time the billboards
were erected and during the incumbency of private respondent as mayor
of Cadiz City, these witnesses were either employed in the Cadiz City
Hall or active in the project of the city government. Bernardita was a
member of the Clean and Green Program of Cadiz City; Jude was employed
as a licensing officer under the Permit and License Division of the
Cadiz City Hall and Nenita held the position of Utility Worker II of the
General Services Office of Cadiz City. These witnesses, according to
the OSG, would naturally testify in his favor. They could have
verbicide the meaning of the word "NEVER." Prudently, at the least, the
prosecution could have presented witnesses within the community with
more independent disposition than these witnesses who are beholden to
private respondent.
According to the private respondent, the message in the billboards would like to convey to the people of Cadiz that he is a
tuta of Sagay City.
We
disagree. Strangely, the OSG adopted a position contrary to the
interest of the People. In its Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of
Comment, instead of contesting the arguments of the petitioner, the OSG
surprisingly joined stance with him, vehemently praying for his
acquittal. We quote with approval the OSG's analysis of the issue which
was the basis for its observation, thus:
During the
proceedings in the trial court, private respondent testified that the
subject billboards maligned his character and portrayed him as a puppet
of Sagay City, Thus:
Q: You do not know of course the intention of putting those billboards "BADING AND SAGAY NEVER"?
A:
Definitely, I know the intention because to answer your question, it
will not only require those "BADING AND SAGAY NEVER" billboard[s], it
was after which additional billboards were put up. That strengthen, that
I am being a "Tuta of Sagay. I am being maligned because of those
billboards that states and I repeat: "Ang Tubig san Cadiz, ginkuha sang
Sagay", "Welcome to Brgy. Cadiz" and there is a small word under it,
Zone 2, very small, very very small, you cannot see it in [sic] a
glance.
x x x x
A: That is the meaning of the
signboard[s]. The message that the signboards would like to convey to
the people of Cadiz, that the Mayor of Cadiz City is a "Tuta" or Puppet
of Sagay City.
x x x x[17]
Contrary
to private respondent's assertion, there is nothing in the subject
billboards which state, either directly or indirectly, that he is, in
his words, a "
tuta" or "puppet" of Sagay City. Except for
private respondent, not a single prosecution witness testified that the
billboards portray Mayor Bading Escalante, Jr. as a "
tuta or "puppet" of Sagay City. The billboards erected by petitioner simply say "CADIZ FOREVER", "BADING AND SAGAY NEVER"
[18]Apparently,
private respondent refers to the circumstances mentioned in another
billboard that is not the subject matter in the present charge. The
aforesaid facts dismally failed to support the allegations in the
instant information. Be that as it may, private respondent nevertheless
did not specify any actionable wrong or particular act or omission on
petitioner's part that could have defamed him or caused his alleged
injury. While it may be that the Court is not bound by the analysis and
observation of the OSG, still, the Court finds that it deserves
meritorious consideration. The prosecution never indulged to give any
reason persuasive enough for the court not to adopt it.
Truth be
told that somehow the private respondent was not pleased with the
controversial printed matter. But that is grossly insufficient to make
it actionable by itself. "[P]ersonal hurt or embarrassment or offense,
even if real, is not automatically equivalent to defamation,"
[19] "words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander
per se,
and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or
vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute bases for an
action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special
damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does
not make it actionable by itself," as the Court ruled in
MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da' Wah Council of the Phils., Inc.
[20]In
arriving at an analogous finding of guilt on petitioner, both lower
courts heavily relied on the testimony of the petitioner pertaining to
the reasons behind the printing of the phrase "CADIZ FOREVER BADING AND
SAGAY NEVER."
[21] Our
in-depth scrutiny of his testimony, however, reveals that the reasons
elicited by the prosecution mainly relate to the discharge of private
respondent's official duties as City Mayor of Cadiz City. For that
matter, granting that the controversial phrase is considered defamatory,
still, no liability attaches on petitioner. Pursuant to Article 361 of
the Revised Penal Code, if the defamatory statement is made against a
public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and
functions and the truth of the allegations is shown, the accused will
be entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the
imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. As
the Court held in
United States v. Bustos,[22]
the policy of a public official may be attacked, rightly or wrongly
with every argument which ability can find or ingenuity invent. The
public officer "may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the
wound can be assuaged by the balm of a clear conscience. A public
[official] must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comments upon
his official acts."
"In criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the
requirement that the elemental acts constituting the offense be
established with moral certainty as this is the critical and only
requisite to a finding of guilt."
[23]
In this case, contrary to the conclusion of the trial court as affirmed
by the appellate court, the prosecution failed to prove that the
controversial phrase "CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER" imputes
derogatory remarks on private respondent's character, reputation and
integrity. In this light, any discussion on the issue of malice is
rendered moot.
WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR No. 28175 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the petitioner is
ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
SO ORDEREDCorona, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, and
Perez, JJ., concur.
[1] Primicias v. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71, 75 (1948).
[2] Rollo,
pp. 31-38; penned by Associate Justice Vicente L. Yap and concurred in
by Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Enrico A. Lanzanas.
[3] Records, pp. 179-196; penned by Judge Renato D. Munez.
[4] Id. at 1.
[5] Id. at 195-196.
[6] Rollo, p. 41-44.
[7] Id. at 91-100.
[8] Id. at 102-113.
[9] Id. at 145.
[10] Ontimare, Jr. v. Elep, G.R. No. 159224, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 257, 265.
[11] Rollo, p. 107.
[12] United States v. O'Connell, 37 Phil. 767, 772 (1918).
[13] REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 353.
[14] Novicio v. Aggabao, 463 Phil. 510, 516 (2003).
[15] Buatis, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 142509, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 275, 286.
[16] United States v. O'Connel, supra note 12 at 772.
[17] TSN, July 28, 2003, pp 62-63, 65.
[18] Rollo, p. 108.
[19] GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos, G.R. No. 146848, October 17, 2006, 504 SCRA 638, 654.
[20] 444 Phil. 230, 241 (2003).
[21]
For brevity, the Court shall refrain from quoting the relevant portion
of the testimony of the petitioner as the same was reproduced in the
assailed Decision.
[22] 37 Phil. 731, 741 (1918).
[23] People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 140, 148.