G.R. No. 208146 - Dio vs. People

Private respondent Timothy Desmond, as Chair and CEO of Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, filed a complaint for libel against petitioner Virginia Dio on December 9, 2002.
Two Informations were filed on February 26, 2003 in RTC, Balanga City, as Criminal Case Nos. 9108 and 9109, alleging Dio sent electronic messages defamatory to Desmond.

Dio’s motions to suspend proceedings and to quash the Informations for “facts charged do not constitute an offense” and for lack of jurisdiction were denied (Orders dated February 6, 2004; July 13, 2004; September 13, 2005).
On October 11, 2005, Dio filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash for failure to allege publication and lack of prosecutorial authority; RTC again denied relief and set arraignment.
By Order dated February 12, 2009, the trial court granted Dio’s partial reconsideration, quashing and dismissing the Informations for failing to allege publication.

Desmond appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising (a) error in quashing for failure to allege publication, and (b) failure to allow amendment of the Informations.
On January 8, 2013, the CA reversed the RTC, holding that although the Informations were defective, Rule 117, Section 4 mandates giving the prosecution an opportunity to amend before quashal; remanded with directive to amend.
Dio’s motion for reconsideration was denied July 10, 2013.
Dio filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, challenging principally whether venue and publication defects are curable by amendment before arraignment.

Whether an Information’s failure to establish venue—including omission of publication in a libel charge—is a defect curable by amendment before arraignment under Rule 117, Section 4 of the Rules of Court.
Whether defects in an Information regarding the prosecutor’s authority to file—based on venue—must be evident on the face of the Information to warrant quashal without amendment.
Whether emails fall within the “similar means” of publication under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, or are exclusively governed by the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
Whether the accused’s good faith constitutes a ground for quashing an Information or is merely a defense to be proven at trial.