Case Digest (G.R. No. 211120)
Facts:
Medel Arnaldo B. Belen v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 211120, February 13, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Belen, then a practicing lawyer (and later dismissed from the bench), filed on March 12, 2004 a criminal complaint for estafa against his uncle Nezer D. Belen, Sr., docketed I.S. No. 04-312 and assigned to Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) Ma. Victoria Sunega-Lagman for preliminary investigation. After submission of affidavits petitioner sought a clarificatory hearing; ACP Sunega-Lagman dismissed the estafa complaint in a Resolution dated July 28, 2004. Aggrieved, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration & Disqualify, whose scathing language later formed the basis of a libel charge.
Petitioner furnished copies of the Omnibus Motion to various offices, and a sealed envelope addressed to the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP), San Pablo City, was received at the OCP receiving section on August 27, 2004. ACP Sunega-Lagman learned of the motion through the respondent’s son Michael and OCP staff Joey Flores; she requested a copy. On September 20, 2004 ACP Sunega-Lagman filed a criminal complaint for libel against petitioner (I.S. No. 04-931). The OCP inhibited and the Regional State Prosecutor designated State Prosecutor Jorge D. Baculi to investigate; on December 6, 2004 probable cause was found, and an Information for libel was filed on December 8, 2004 quoting petitioner’s motion at length.
At arraignment petitioner refused to plead and the trial court entered a plea of NOT GUILTY. At trial the prosecution offered ACP Sunega-Lagman, Michael Belen, and OCP staff Joey R. Flores and Gayne Gamo Enseo; the defense presented petitioner as sole witness. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of libel, fined him P3,000, and did not pronounce civil damages. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (inter alia) that publication occurred and the statements were not absolutely privileged because they were irrelevant to the subject of the estafa preliminary investigation; Justice Nina G. Antonio‑Valenzuela dissented at the CA, arguing the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the element of publication of the alleged libelous statements present?
- Were the statements in petitioner’s Omnibus Motion protected by the doctrine of absolutely privileged communication?
- Were the testimonies of ordinary witnesses (Michael, Flores, Enseo) admissible to show the defamatory character of the motion, or did reliance on their opinions contraven...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)