Case Digest (G.R. No. 172203)
Facts:
Dionisio Lopez y Aberasturi v. People of the Philippines and Salvador G. Escalante, Jr., G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011, the Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Dionisio Lopez was indicted for libel by information dated March 31, 2003, for erecting billboards in Cadiz City in November 2002 that read, in full, “CADIZ FOREVER” with a blank line over “NEVER,” later completed to read “CADIZ FOREVER / BADING AND SAGAY NEVER.” The private complainant was Salvador G. Escalante, Jr., then City Mayor of Cadiz City, popularly nicknamed “Bading.” Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment (May 8, 2003); the parties stipulated to the identities and that petitioner called the private respondent “Bading.”At trial the prosecution presented testimony that the billboards were placed at prominent intersections and that the completed phrase was seen by many residents; witnesses, two of whom were city employees and one a retired city worker, testified they took a negative impression from the phrase. Petitioner admitted erecting the signs and explained his intent as political criticism and personal opposition to the mayor’s actions, denying any intention to portray the mayor as a “tuta” or puppet of Sagay City.
On December 17, 2003, the Regional Trial Court (Cadiz City, Branch 60) convicted petitioner of libel under Article 353 in relation to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to an indeterminate term (Arresto Mayor to Prision Correccional) and ordered payment of P5,000,000.00 moral damages. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 28175), which on August 31, 2005 affirmed with modification, reducing moral damages to P500,000.00; the CA denied reconsideration on April 7, 2006.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. The Office of the Solicitor General ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the words “CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER” were libelous and tended to induce suspicion on Mayor Escalante’s character, integrity and reputation?
- If the phrase were defamatory, did it nonetheless constitute fair comment or privileged communication on a matter of public interest that would bar criminal liability?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly hold that the presumption of malice was not overthrown?
- Should petitioner have been acquitted and relieved of liability for moral ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)