Case Digest: Yambot v. Tuquero
G.R. No. 169895 : March 23, 2011
ISAGANI M. YAMBOT, LETTY JIMENEZ-MAGSANOC, JOSE MA. D. NOLASCO, ARTEMIO T. ENGRACIA, JR. and VOLT CONTRERAS, Petitoners, v. Hon. ARTEMIO TUQUERO in his capacity as Secretary of Justice, and ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ, JR.,Respondents.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS:
An article from the Philippine Daily inquirer headlined a report written by Contreras, herein referred to as the petitioner regarding the mauling incident that happened between RTC Judge Cruz and Mendoza, an administrative officer assigned at Makati RTC. Such article was referred to by Judge Cruz as false and malicious so the latter filed a libel case against the writer, particularly the line that states that the said judge still has a pending sexual harassment case filed at the SC. It appeared that the sexual harassment being referred to by the Petitioner was based from a Court Petition for cancellation of contempt order by one Paredes- Garcia. She appended an affidavit executed by Talag-Pascual to purportedly show the proclivity of Judge Cruz for seducing women who became objects of his fancy, stating that she also suffered the same infirmities. The SC later on granted the petition for cancellation of contempt order but the administrative case against the Judge was not passed upon.
Subsequently, the RTC of Makati approved a resolution finding probable cause against the PDI employees hence an information was filed them. The petitioners appealed to the DOJ and the CA who dismissed the same hence the said Petition for review on Certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Prosecutor erred in finding probable cause to charge the PDI employees with libel
HELD: Yes.
Criminal Law: Libel
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 discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. The elements of libel are (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice. The glaring absence of maliciousness in the news article negates the existence of probable cause that the PDI staff has committed libel. The article in question merely reported the statement of Mendoza that there was allegedly a pending case of sexual harassment against Judge Cruz, the said article did not report the existence of the alleged sexual harassment suit as a confirmed fact. Judge Cruz never alleged, much less proved, that Mendoza did not utter such statement.The questioned portion of the news article, while unfortunately not quite accurate, on its own, is insufficient to establish the element of malice in libel cases.The Court held that malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. It is present when it is shown that the author of the libelous remarks made such remarks with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof. The pointed the absence of malice on the part of the PDI employees.
POLITICAL LAW: Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech
SC reiterated that a newspaper especially one national in reach and coverage, should be free to report on events and developments in which the public has a legitimate interest with minimum fear of being hauled to court by one group or another on criminal or civil charges for libel, so long as the newspaper respects and keeps within the standards of morality and civility prevailing within the general community. Like fair commentaries on matters of public interest, fair reports should be included under the protective mantle of privileged communications, and should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover grounds of malice or falsity. The concept of privileged communication is implicit in the constitutionally protected freedom of the press, which would be threatened when criminal suits are unscrupulously leveled by persons wishing to silence the media on account of unfounded claims of inaccuracies in news reports.
Petition for review Granted.
ISAGANI M. YAMBOT, LETTY JIMENEZ-MAGSANOC, JOSE MA. D. NOLASCO, ARTEMIO T. ENGRACIA, JR. and VOLT CONTRERAS, Petitoners, v. Hon. ARTEMIO TUQUERO in his capacity as Secretary of Justice, and ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ, JR.,Respondents.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS:
An article from the Philippine Daily inquirer headlined a report written by Contreras, herein referred to as the petitioner regarding the mauling incident that happened between RTC Judge Cruz and Mendoza, an administrative officer assigned at Makati RTC. Such article was referred to by Judge Cruz as false and malicious so the latter filed a libel case against the writer, particularly the line that states that the said judge still has a pending sexual harassment case filed at the SC. It appeared that the sexual harassment being referred to by the Petitioner was based from a Court Petition for cancellation of contempt order by one Paredes- Garcia. She appended an affidavit executed by Talag-Pascual to purportedly show the proclivity of Judge Cruz for seducing women who became objects of his fancy, stating that she also suffered the same infirmities. The SC later on granted the petition for cancellation of contempt order but the administrative case against the Judge was not passed upon.
Subsequently, the RTC of Makati approved a resolution finding probable cause against the PDI employees hence an information was filed them. The petitioners appealed to the DOJ and the CA who dismissed the same hence the said Petition for review on Certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Prosecutor erred in finding probable cause to charge the PDI employees with libel
HELD: Yes.
Criminal Law: Libel
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 discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. The elements of libel are (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice. The glaring absence of maliciousness in the news article negates the existence of probable cause that the PDI staff has committed libel. The article in question merely reported the statement of Mendoza that there was allegedly a pending case of sexual harassment against Judge Cruz, the said article did not report the existence of the alleged sexual harassment suit as a confirmed fact. Judge Cruz never alleged, much less proved, that Mendoza did not utter such statement.The questioned portion of the news article, while unfortunately not quite accurate, on its own, is insufficient to establish the element of malice in libel cases.The Court held that malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. It is present when it is shown that the author of the libelous remarks made such remarks with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof. The pointed the absence of malice on the part of the PDI employees.
POLITICAL LAW: Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech
SC reiterated that a newspaper especially one national in reach and coverage, should be free to report on events and developments in which the public has a legitimate interest with minimum fear of being hauled to court by one group or another on criminal or civil charges for libel, so long as the newspaper respects and keeps within the standards of morality and civility prevailing within the general community. Like fair commentaries on matters of public interest, fair reports should be included under the protective mantle of privileged communications, and should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover grounds of malice or falsity. The concept of privileged communication is implicit in the constitutionally protected freedom of the press, which would be threatened when criminal suits are unscrupulously leveled by persons wishing to silence the media on account of unfounded claims of inaccuracies in news reports.
Petition for review Granted.
