Case Digest (G.R. No. 184800)
Facts:
Wonina M. Bonifacio, Jocelyn Upano, Vicente Ortuoste and Jovencio Pereche, Sr. v. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 149, and Jessie John P. Gimenez, G.R. No. 184800, May 05, 2010, First Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Jessie John P. Gimenez filed on October 18, 2005 a criminal complaint for thirteen counts of libel under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code against officers and trustees of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) and other individuals (including petitioners). The complaint alleged defamatory publications on PEPCI-operated internet sites — pepcoalition.com, a blogspot at pacificnoplan.blogspot.com and a Yahoo Group — accessible to the public; one sample posting was dated August 25, 2005.
On May 5, 2006 the Makati City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed thirteen separate informations (Criminal Case Nos. 06-873 to 06-885). Several accused sought review before the Secretary of Justice, who on June 20, 2007 reversed the finding of probable cause and directed withdrawal of the informations, concluding that “internet libel” was non-existent as a separate crime. Meanwhile, petitioners (co-accused) had filed a motion to quash Criminal Case No. 06-876 before Branch 149, RTC Makati on June 6, 2006 asserting jurisdictional defects under the venue rules for libel.
By Order of October 3, 2006, the RTC initially quashed the information for lack of venue allegations (citing Agustin v. Pamintuan). The prosecution moved for reconsideration relying on Banal III v. Panganiban, and the RTC, by Order of March 8, 2007, granted reconsideration and directed amendment to cure the venue defect. The prosecution filed an Amended Information (March 20, 2007) alleging that the website is “accessible in Makati City” and that the defamatory article “was first published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City.”
Petitioners again moved to quash the Amended Information arguing the venue allegation remained deficient because it failed to allege that the article was “printed and first published” in Makati and that the venue could not be laid merely where the offended party accessed an internet publication. By Order of April 22, 2008, Branch 149 denied the motion to quash (applying Banal III) and, on August 12, 2008, denied reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court, contending (among others) that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners' failure to first seek relief from a lower court violate the rule on hierarchy of courts so as to render the petition dismissible?
- Did the Regional Trial Court, Branch 149, commit grave abuse of discretion in admitting the Amended Information by treating a private complainant’s “access” to an internet-published article in Makati as equivalent to the libelous article’s having been “printed and first published” there, t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)