Case Digest (G.R. No. 230299)
Facts:
Jannece C. Penalosa v. Jose A. Ocampo, Jr., G.R. No. 230299, April 26, 2023, the Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jannece C. Penalosa was charged by information with libel for a Facebook post allegedly made on August 3, 2011; the private offended party was Jose A. Ocampo, Jr. The information was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 212, Mandaluyong City, as Criminal Case No. MC12-14668.After the information was filed, Penalosa sought reconsideration before the Office of the City Prosecutor and moved to defer proceedings in the RTC pending that action. The City Prosecutor denied reconsideration, prompting Penalosa to file a Petition for Review with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The RTC initially found probable cause and issued an arrest warrant in June 2014. On September 16, 2014, the DOJ granted Penalosa’s Petition for Review and directed the City Prosecutor to withdraw the information, reasoning that (a) the alleged Facebook post was made before the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) and (b) the words were, at most, insulting and not necessarily libelous.
Pursuant to the DOJ resolution, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Information (September 25, 2014), and Penalosa filed a Motion to Quash. On January 26, 2015, Judge Rizalina T. Capco-Umali of the RTC issued an order that, after an independent four-page assessment, declared that although the statements could constitute internet libel, RA 10175 was not yet in force in August 2011 and thus dismissed the information as the acts were not criminally punishable when committed.
As the private offended party, Ocampo, Jr. filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC’s dismissal. In an April 27, 2016 Decision (Special First Division, penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza), the CA annulled the RTC order and ruled that Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code punishable “by means of writing or any similar means” covered libelous Facebook posts, and it interpreted Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 as affirming that online libel is libel by “similar means.” The CA remanded the case for further proceedings and denied Penalosa’s motion for reconsideration in a November 25, 2016 Resolution.
Penalosa filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) with this Court on April 11, 2017. The Court required respondent to comment; it issued a Temporary Restraining Order on July 4, 2018, enjoining the RTC from proceeding, and later made the TRO permanent. The central disputes before the Court concerned (1) the proper remedy against the RTC’s order dismissing the information, (2) whether the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Jose A. Ocampo, Jr.’s petition for certiorari the proper remedy to assail the RTC’s order granting the motion to withdraw information?
- Did respondent Jose A. Ocampo, Jr. have the legal personality to file the petition challenging the withdrawal of the information?
- Did the Regional Trial Court gravely abuse its discretion in granting the Motion to Withdraw Information, and may an allegedly libelous Facebook post made in 2011 be punished un...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)