Case Digest (G.R. No. 161032)
Facts:
Erwin Tulfo v. People of the Philippines and Atty. Carlos T. So, G.R. No. 161032; Susan Cambri, Rey Salao, Jocelyn Barlizo, and Philip Pichay v. Court of Appeals, People of the Philippines, and Carlos So, G.R. No. 161176, September 16, 2008, the Supreme Court Second Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.
On September 8, 1999 Atty. Carlos "Ding" So of the Bureau of Customs filed four separate criminal informations for libel with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City (Branch 112), docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 99-1597 to 99-1600. The informations charged Erwin Tulfo (columnist/author), Susan Cambri (managing editor), Rey Salao (national editor), Jocelyn Barlizo (city editor), and Philip Pichay (president of Carlo Publishing House, Inc.), officers of the tabloid Remate, with publishing defamatory articles in the "Direct Hit" column on May 11, May 12, May 19 and June 25, 1999 imputing corruption, extortion and other misconduct to Atty. So.
At arraignment Tulfo, Salao and Cambri pleaded not guilty on November 3, 1999; Barlizo and Pichay were arraigned and pleaded not guilty on December 15, 1999. At pre-trial the petitioners admitted several facts, including that Remate is of general circulation, the existence and authorship of the column at issue, and that the complainant was not assigned at South Harbor on the publication dates. The prosecution presented four witnesses (Oscar Ablan, Atty. James Fortes, Jr., Gladys Fontanilla, and Atty. So) and documentary evidence including a Bureau of Customs certification that only one Atty. Carlos T. So (aka "Ding") was in the Bureau’s records.
At trial Tulfo testified he did not know or meet Atty. So before publication, relied on an unnamed source in the Bureau of Customs, did not verify the allegations, and continued to publish a follow-up column after So filed suit. The other petitioners denied participation in writing or editing Tulfo’s columns and described editorial practices putting columnists under the vice-president for editorials.
In a Decision dated November 17, 2000, the RTC found all five accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of libel (Article 353, RPC), sentenced each to indeterminate imprisonment and awarded P800,000 actual, P1,000,000 moral and P500,000 exemplary damages jointly and severally. The Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated June 17, 2003, affirmed the RTC judgment. Motions for reconsideration were denied (Resolution, December 11, 2003).
Petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 were filed in the Supreme Court: G.R. No. 161032 (Tulfo) and G.R. No. 161176 (Cambri et al.). The two cases were consolidated (Resolution dated M...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Tulfo’s defense of qualified privileged communication properly raised and, if considered, did it negate the presumption of malice under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code?
- Was Atty. Carlos T. So sufficiently identified as the person referred to in the published articles?
- Can the managing editor, national editor, city editor, and president of the publishing house be held criminally liable under Article 360, RPC despite their claims of nonparticipation?
- What penalties and damages are ap...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)