G.R. No. 93177 - Comendador vs. De Villa

On March 12, 2004, petitioner Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, then a lawyer, filed a criminal complaint for estafa against his uncle, Nezer D. Belen, Sr., docketed I.S. No. 04-312 before the OCP of San Pablo City and assigned to ACP Ma. Victoria SuAega-Lagman.
After submission of affidavits and petitioner’s request for a clarificatory hearing, ACP SuAega-Lagman dismissed the estafa complaint by Resolution dated July 28, 2004.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed an “Omnibus Motion (for Reconsideration & Disqualify)” complaining of alleged bias and “stupendous stupidity” on the part of ACP SuAega-Lagman; he furnished copies to Nezer, the DOJ-Manila, and mailed a sealed copy to the OCP, received August 27, 2004.
As procedure, the receiving section logged the motion and forwarded it to records before assignment; ACP SuAega-Lagman first learned of it from Michael Belen and staff Joey Flores, then secured a photocopy.

On September 20, 2004, ACP SuAega-Lagman filed a criminal complaint for libel (I.S. No. 04-931) against petitioner based on the Omnibus Motion’s language. The San Pablo OCP inhibited itself; records were forwarded to the Regional State Prosecutor.
On September 23, 2004, State Prosecutor Jorge D. Baculi was designated to investigate; on December 6, 2004, he found probable cause and on December 8, 2004 filed an Information charging libel under Article 353 RPC, quoting the motion’s pejorative terms.

Petitioner refused to plead; a “Not Guilty” plea was entered. Prosecution witnesses were ACP SuAega-Lagman, Michael Belen (respondent’s representative), and OCP staff Flores and Enseo; the defense presented only petitioner as witness.
The RTC convicted petitioner of libel, fined him ₱3,000.00, and declined damages. It held the comments were defamatory, published to third persons, and not absolutely privileged as they were irrelevant to the estafa dismissal.

On April 12, 2013, the CA affirmed the RTC: publication presumed, absolute privilege inapplicable, and witnesses’ readings constituted publication. Dissent argued privilege applied and no third-person publication.
On January 10, 2014, the CA denied reconsideration. Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45.

Whether the element of publication in libel is present given the sealed Omnibus Motion served on a public office.
Whether the statements in the Omnibus Motion are covered by the rule on absolutely privileged communications.
Whether the testimonies of “ordinary” witnesses (Michael Belen, Flores, Enseo) on the defamatory nature of the statements are admissible.