Facts:
United States v. Jaime Ubinana, G.R. No. 927, November 08, 1902, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ladd, J., writing for the Court. The case arose from a criminal prosecution for libel under the new libel law (Act of the United States Philippine Commission, No. 277) in which the United States was complainant and Jaime Ubinana was defendant and appellant.The libelous matter consisted of a letter written by Ubinana to the private prosecutor's wife during an illicit correspondence; the evidence showed the letter solicited adultery. The wife received and read the letter, and the husband later discovered it in her possession. The private prosecutor then initiated criminal proceedings for libel against Ubinana under Act No. 277.
At trial (the court below), Ubinana was convicted. On appeal to the Supreme Court, counsel for Ubinana advanced several assignments of error: (a) that the private, confidential, and secret character of the letter rebutted the presumption of malice arising from publication; (b) that the prosecution failed to prove Ubinana had parted with custody “under such circumstances that as a natural and logical consequence it might be read by a third person,” as required by the Libel Act; and (c) factual assertions that the trial court prevented the defendant from testifying and improperly permitted the wif...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the private, confidential, and secret character of a letter rebut the presumption of malice attached to an injurious publication under Act No. 277?
- Did the prosecution prove the defendant “knowingly parted with the immediate custody of the libel under circumstances which exposed it to be read or seen by any other person” within the meaning of the Libel Act (Sec. 5)?
- Did the trial court err in refusing to allow the defendant to testify and in permitting the private prosecutor's wife t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)