Case Digest (G.R. No. 167764)
Facts:
Vicente Foz, Jr. and Danny G. Fajardo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 167764, October 09, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Vicente Foz, Jr. (columnist) and Danny G. Fajardo (editor-publisher) were criminally charged by information dated October 17, 1994 with libel for publishing an opinion-column entitled “MEET DR. PORTIGO, COMPANY PHYSICIAN” in the daily newspaper Panay News on July 5, 1994, which allegedly defamed Dr. Edgar Portigo. The Information alleged publication in Iloilo City and described Panay News as “a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region.” The Information did not allege where the newspaper was printed and first published, nor did it allege Dr. Portigo’s actual residence at the time of the alleged offense.
Petitioners were arraigned on March 1, 1995 and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Iloilo City, rendered judgment on December 4, 1997 finding both petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of libel (Articles 353 and 355, RPC) and sentenced them to an indeterminate prison term and a fine. The RTC denied their motion for reconsideration in an order dated February 20, 1998.
The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On November 24, 2004 the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 22522 affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated April 8, 2005. Thereafter petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court, assailing the CA decision on grounds that the article was not libelous, that malice was not proven and that Fajardo as publisher should not be held criminally liable for his columnist’s opinion. The Solicitor General filed a Comment arguing that factual findings were not for review under Rule 45.
In their Reply before the Court, petitioners for the first time raised the procedural ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Iloilo City, have jurisdiction over the libel case as charged in the Information?
- Was the subject article libelous within the meaning of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code?
- Was malice established or, alternatively, was the publication a privileged communication protected by the Constitution?
- Could petitioner Fajardo be held criminally liable as pu...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)