Case Digest (A.M. No. 02-1-27-MCTC)
Facts:
Petitioner Laureano Fernandez was charged with libel in Criminal Case No. Q-4141 before the respondent City Judge Jaime M. Lantin, for allegedly writing and causing the publication of a letter imputing to Iluminada Tandiama, a married woman, “the commission of a crime, vice, defect, or any act or omission,” specifically referring to her “illicit relationship” and labeling Hector Valdeleon as her “paramour,” and further alleging that she was favored by premature transfer at government expense. The information was filed by the Assistant City Fiscal and not by the offended party, prompting petitioner to file a Motion to Quash anchored on Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires a complaint by the offended party when the defamation imputes a crime that cannot be prosecuted de oficio.The respondent judge denied the motion to quash, and the motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. On certiorari, the issue centered on whether the imputation in the libel concerned a crime against chastity that is not prosecutable de oficio, and the Court was asked to set aside the order denying the motion to quash.
Issues:
- Whether the libel charged imputed a crime against chastity (specifically adultery) that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, requiring a complaint by the offended party under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Whether the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction due to the information being filed by the fiscal without the offended party’s complaint.
- Whether the defect, if any, required dismissal or could be cured by filing the proper complaint or verified statement of the offended party.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (A.M. No. 02-1-27-MCTC)
Facts:
Petitioner Laureano Fernandez was charged with libel in Criminal Case No. Q-4141 before the respondent Judge Jaime M. Lantin of the Quezon City court, on the basis of an Information filed on August 12, 1974 by Assistant City Fiscal Rogelio Concepcion. The Information alleged that petitioner wrote and caused the publication of a letter directly, publicly, and maliciously imputing to Iluminada Tandiama “the commission of a crime, vice, defect, or any act or omission, with intent to ridicule, put to hate, shame and embarrass” her. The letter, as described in the Information, narrated that Iluminada, a married employee of the Bureau of Prisons and the married to Celedonio Tandiama, was allegedly discovered having an illicit relationship with Prison Guard Hector Valdeleon, the latter allegedly being Iluminada’s paramour; it further asserted that Valdeleon was separated from the service because of such relationship, while Iluminada was spared and prematurely transferred to the San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm in Zamboanga City “at the expense of the government treasury,” with the added suggestion that prison officials would forget the matter if she were not around. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, no criminal action for defamation consisting in the imputation of a crime that cannot be prosecuted de oficio may be brought except at the instance of, and upon complaint filed by, the offended party, and noting that the Information was signed not by the offended party but by the Assistant City Fiscal. On June 8, 1976, Assistant City Fiscal Margarito S. Viola opposed, contending that “illicit relation” did not necessarily mean unlawful cohabitation or intercourse and did not necessarily connote adultery, concubinage, rape, seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness, so that no offended-party complaint was required. A further Addendum to the Opposition maintained that the letter did not impute adultery, but instead referred to an alleged “compartmentalized justice” affecting Valdeleon and Iluminada. Petitioner replied that the alleged defamatory statements were linked to an administrative matter then under investigation, invoking Article 354, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code on qualified privileged communications. On July 28, 1976, the respondent judge denied the motion to quash, holding that the imputations regarding the “illicit relationship” could be a “vice or defect” so that Article 360 would not apply, and stating that the offended-party complaint requirement applies only when the imputed crime is one that cannot be prosecuted de oficio. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on August 11, 1976. In this certiorari proceeding, the Acting Solicitor General commented that the letter’s thrust was not only that Iluminada had an illicit relationship with Valdeleon, described as a paramour, but also that Iluminada was prematurely transferred in order to spare her from disgrace, a narrative implying favoritism and undue action by the Acting Director. The case was submitted for decision on the pleadings.Issues:
Whether the libel charged against petitioner consisted in the imputation of a crime that could not be prosecuted de oficio, thereby requiring a complaint filed by the offended party under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (A.M. No. 02-1-27-MCTC)
Facts:
- Parties and nature of the case
- Petitioner Laureano Fernandez was charged with Libel in Criminal Case No. Q-4141, entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Atty. Laureano B. Fernandez.”
- Respondents were the Honorable Judge Jaime M. Lantin and the City Fiscal of Quezon City.
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari questioning the validity of respondent Judge’s Order denying petitioner’s “Motion to Quash.”
- Filing and contents of the Information
- On August 12, 1974, Assistant City Fiscal Rogelio Concepcion filed an Information for Libel in Criminal Case No. Q-4141 against petitioner.
- The Information accused petitioner of libel consisting in his having written and caused the publication of a letter directly, publicly, and maliciously imputing to Iluminada Tandiama “the commission of a crime, vice, defect, or any act or omission, with intent to ridicule, put to hate, shame and embarrass said Iluminada Tandiama.”
- The letter’s more explicit statements included that:
- Iluminada Tandiama, an employee in the Bureau and married to Celedonio Tandiama, an employee and nephew of Mrs. Caridad T. Raval, was allegedly discovered having an illicit relationship with another employed as a prison guard.
- The other man was identified as Hector Valdeleon, described as the paramour of Iluminada Tandiama.
- The Acting Director allegedly separated Prison Guard Valdeleon from the service because of that illicit relationship.
- Iluminada Tandiama was alleged to have been spared “the axe,” despite being “equally guilty, if not more.”
- Iluminada Tandiama was said to be the niece of the Acting Director and Mrs. Vicente R. Raval by affinity.
- At the expense of the government treasury, Iluminada Tandiama together with her husband and children was allegedly prematurely transferred to the San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm of Zamboanga City, notwithstanding another administrative case.
- The letter speculated that prison officials and employees who knew of the case would “forget it” if she was not around.
- Proceedings on the Motion to Quash
- Petitioner filed a “Motion to Quash” based on Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, asserting that no criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime that cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint filed by the offended party.
- Petitioner emphasized that the Information was signed not by the alleged offended party, but by the Assistant City Fiscal.
- On June 8, 1976, Assistant City Fiscal Margarito S. Viola filed an “Opposition” contending, in effect, that an “illicit relation” does not necessarily mean unlawful cohabitation or intercourse, and does not necessarily connote adultery, concubinage, rape, seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness, whose imputation would require a complaint by the offended party.
- Assistant City Fiscal Viola filed an “Addendum to the Opposition to Motion to Quash” further elaborating that:
- The letter did not impute the commission of adultery, but some other form of unlawful relationship.
- The statements also allegedly adverted to the fact that Valdeleon was the victim of “compartmentalized justice.”
- Petitioner filed a “Reply to the Opposition to Motion to Quash,” arguing that the alleged libelous imputation was an issue in an administrative case against Acting Director Vicente R. Raval of the Bureau of Prisons, which was under investigation by the Department of Justice, and that the matter was covered by Article 354, Par. 1 RPC on qualified privileged communication.
- On July 28, 1976, respondent Judge issued an Order holding that:
- The slanderous imputation of an alleged illicit relationship between complainant and a prison guard could be a vice or defect, in which case Article 360 does not apply.
- Article 360 applies only when the defamation consists in the imputation of a crime that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, such as adultery, concubinage, rape, seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness.
- Respondent Judge denied the Motion to Quash.
- Petitioner filed a “Motion for Reconsideration,” but it was denied on August 11, 1976 for lack of merit.
- Comment in the certiorari proceeding and thrust of the letter
- On October 18, 1976, this Court required respondents to file their Comment.
- On November 15, 1976, the Acting Solicitor General filed the Comment for respondents.
- The Comment alleged that petitioner’s malicious imputations referred not only to:
- the offended party having an illicit relation with, and being a paramour of, Hector Valdeleon; but also to
- the “premature transfer” of the offended party and her family to the San Ramon Penal Farm in Zamboanga City “so that the prison officials...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the criminal action for libel in the case consisted in the imputation of a crime that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, such that Article 360, Revised Penal Code required a complaint filed by the offended party
- Whether the letter’s statements imputing that Iluminada Tandiama had an “illicit relationship” and was a “paramour” of Hector Valdeleon necessarily implied the commission of adultery.
- Whether, if the imputation was of adultery, the Information filed by the Assistant City Fiscal without a complaint signed by the offended party violated the requirement under Article 360 RPC.
- Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction to try the libel charge despite the procedural defect alleged by petitioner
- Whether an Information signed by...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)