Case Digest (G.R. No. 164845)
Facts:
William Tieng, Wilson Tieng, and Willy Tieng v. Hon. Judge Selma Palacio-Alaras, et al., G.R. Nos. 164845, 181732, 185315, July 13, 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carandang, J., writing for the Court.
The consolidated petitions arise from several libel complaints against broadcaster Hilarion M. Henares, Jr. (Henares) for allegedly defamatory statements made on his program “Make My Day with Larry Henares,” aired on radio (DWBR‑FM 104.3) and television (IBC‑13). The contested legal question was whether the venue and jurisdictional rules of Article 360, Revised Penal Code (RPC) — as amended by R.A. 4363 — apply to libel committed by radio and television, and relatedly whether the civil‑action venue provisions in Article 360 are jurisdictional.
G.R. No. 185315 (Rule 45) concerned Criminal Case No. 02‑0194 filed by William Tieng in RTC Paranaque (Branch 274) for a November 29, 2001 radio broadcast. Henares moved to quash the information on the ground that Article 360 required alleging where the libelous matter was “printed and first published” or where the offended party resided (jurisdictional facts), which the information did not do. The RTC denied the motion and the Court of Appeals likewise ruled that Article 360 applied only to written publications; radio broadcasts were governed by Section 15(a), Rule 110 (place where offense committed). Henares sought relief before the Court under Rule 45.
G.R. No. 181732 (Rule 45) arose from three informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 02‑3585 to 02‑3587) filed by Willy Tieng in RTC Makati (Branch 145) for radio and television broadcasts dated November 28–29, 2001. Henares moved to quash asserting defects in form and that Article 360 required alleging the place of first publication or the complainant’s residence; the trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and quashed the informations, holding that the third paragraph of Article 360—although worded for “written defamations”—covers “written defamation and other similar means” under Article 355 RPC (which lists radio and other media), and thus the informations failed to allege the jurisdictional facts.
G.R. No. 164845 (Rule 65) was filed by the Tieng brothers challenging RTC Makati, Branch 62’s Orders (April 26 and June 8, 2004) that dismissed Civil Case No. 02‑359 for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. The civil complaint sought damages for multiple alleged libelous utterances (some distinct from the counted criminal informations) and had been consolidated with a related criminal case in Branch 62; Henares argued the civil complaint failed to allege Article 360’s required jurisdictional facts. The RTC dismissed the civil complaint on the ground that Article 360 requires the civil action to be filed in the court that first acquires jurisdiction over the criminal action (or vice versa). The Tieng brothers petitioned by certiorari under Rule 65.
During proceedings Henares later informed the Court that the Paranaque RTC had reversed its conviction and acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 02‑0194, rendering that particular quashal petition practically moot although the Court nonetheless resolved the legal question. Separate pleadings cited relevant preceden...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Do the venue and jurisdiction rules of Article 360, Revised Penal Code apply to libel committed by radio and television broadcasts?
- Was the dismissal by RTC Makati, Branch 62 of Civil Case No. 02‑359 consistent with Article 360, RPC?
- Under Article 360, RPC, is the venue of the civil action for libel jurisdict...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)