Title
Lopez y Aberasturi vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 172203
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2011
Petitioner acquitted of libel for billboards criticizing mayor; SC ruled phrase non-defamatory, privileged as fair commentary, and lacking malice.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 172203)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Indictment and Trial
    • On April 3, 2003, petitioner Dionisio Lopez was indicted for libel under an Information alleging that in November 2002 he posted billboards in Cadiz City reading “CADIZ FOREVER” with a blank before “NEVER,” later filled in as “BADING AND SAGAY NEVER,” purportedly to maligned Mayor Salvador G. Escalante, Jr.
    • Petitioner pleaded not guilty; during pre-trial, parties stipulated on his identity, the mayor’s nickname “Bading,” and petitioner’s use thereof.
  • Evidence at Trial
    • Private respondent (the mayor) testified he saw the incomplete and then completed billboards, felt dishonored, and filed the complaint for libel, claiming mental anguish and sleepless nights.
    • Three prosecution witnesses—Cadiz City licensing officer, a retired city employee, and a community volunteer—testified they found the message negative and insulting to the mayor. Petitioner admitted erecting the billboards as a critique of the mayor’s performance but denied labeling him a “tuta” or puppet.
  • Lower Court Decisions
    • RTC, on December 17, 2003, convicted petitioner of libel under Art. 353, RPC, sentencing him to 4 months 20 days to 2 years 11 months 10 days imprisonment and a fine of ₱5,000, ordering moral damages of ₱5,000,000.
    • CA, on August 31, 2005, affirmed with modification, reducing moral damages to ₱500,000; denied reconsideration on April 7, 2006.

Issues:

  • Defamatory Nature
    • Whether the phrase “CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER” is libelous, i.e., tending to defame Mayor Escalante’s character, integrity, or reputation.
  • Privilege and Malice
    • Whether the phrase constitutes fair commentary on a matter of public interest, thus privileged.
    • Whether the presumption of malice was correctly applied and whether petitioner overthrew that presumption.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.