Case Digest (G.R. No. 208146)
Facts:
Virginia Dio v. People of the Philippines and Timothy Desmond, G.R. No. 208146, June 08, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Virginia Dio was treasurer and director of Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium; private respondent Timothy Desmond was its Chair and CEO. On December 9, 2002 Desmond filed a complaint for libel against Dio. Two separate informations dated February 26, 2003 were filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga City (Criminal Case Nos. 9108 and 9109), alleging that Dio willfully sent defamatory electronic messages on July 6 and July 13, 2002, to Desmond and to several third persons; the informations did not expressly allege publication beyond naming recipients or where the messages were first accessed.
Dio sought various reliefs in the trial court: a petition to suspend proceedings (denied Feb. 6, 2004), motions to quash the informations (initially denied in orders dated July 13, 2004, Sept. 13, 2005, and Feb. 7, 2006), and ultimately a motion for partial reconsideration. In its February 12, 2009 Order the RTC (Branch 3, Balanga City) granted partial reconsideration and quashed and dismissed the informations on the ground that they failed to allege publication.
Desmond appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 32514). In its January 8, 2013 Decision the Court of Appeals held the informations did not substantially allege the offense (noting lack of allegation that the emails were accessed), but found the RTC erred in quashing without first giving the prosecution the opportunity to amend under Rule 117, Section 4 of the Rules of Court; it reversed the RTC, directed remand, and ordered the Public Prosecutor to amend the informations. The CA denied reconsideration in its July 10, 2013 Resolution.
Dio filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court challenging the CA decision. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and Desmond filed comments; the parties submitted memoranda after the Court gave due course to the petition on April 2, 2014. The primary contention before the Court was whether an information’s failure to establish venue/publication is a defect curable by am...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is an information’s failure to establish venue (or other defects apparent in the information) a defect that can be cured by amendment prior to arraignment under Rule 117, Section 4?
- Does sending emails, as alleged here, constitute "publication" under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code such that libel was committed, or is that a question to be determined at trial?
- Is alleged good faith or qualified privilege a ground for quashing an...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)