Case Summary (G.R. No. 143547)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Articles published: August 1 and August 12, 2000.
Arraignment and plea: Petitioner pleaded not guilty.
Motion to Quash filed: February 11, 2002.
RTC Order quashing informations: April 9, 2002.
RTC Order recalling quashal and allowing amendment: June 14, 2002.
Court of Appeals decision dismissing petitioner’s Rule 65 petition: October 15, 2004; Resolution denying reconsideration: March 17, 2005.
Supreme Court disposition: Petition for review under Rule 45 denied (decision authored by Justice Ynares‑Santiago).
Applicable Law and Legal Standards
Venue in libel cases: Paragraph 3, Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code — actions for written defamation must be filed in the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of the province or city where the libelous article was printed and first published or where any offended party actually resides at the time of the offense.
Rules on amendment: Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court (amendments in form or substance before plea without leave; after plea, formal amendments allowed with leave if no prejudice). The Court also referenced Section 6, Rule 110 (general rule on jurisdictional allegations).
Test for admissibility of amendment: People v. Casey — whether an amendment prejudices a defense available under the original information and whether a defendant’s evidence would remain applicable; whether the amendment changes the nature of the crime, increases penalty exposure, affects the essence of the offense, or causes surprise.
Standard for certiorari under 1987 Constitution: Relief on certiorari (Rule 45) is available only where there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction — capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment.
Factual Background of the Charges
Respondents filed complaints for libel based on petitioner’s two articles; six similar informations were instituted (docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 01‑693 to 01‑698). Each information alleged that petitioner, as columnist, and an identified source conspired and published defamatory articles in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which the informations described as “published in English in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and of general circulation in the Philippines and abroad.” The informations did not explicitly allege the place where the libelous articles were printed and first published nor the actual residence of the offended parties at the time of the offenses.
Motion to Quash, RTC Ruling, and Subsequent Amendment Request
Petitioner moved to quash the informations for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that Article 360 requires alleging the offended parties’ residence or the place where the article was printed and first published. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the informations in an April 9, 2002 order, finding the informations deficient for not specifically alleging that the publications were printed and first published in Makati City or that the offended parties resided in Makati. Respondents moved for reconsideration and sought leave to amend the informations to add an explicit allegation that the libelous articles were printed and first published in Makati, asserting the omission was a formal defect curable by amendment. The trial court concluded the amendment would be formal, allowed it, and recalled the dismissal by order dated June 14, 2002.
Petition for Certiorari, Court of Appeals Ruling, and Issues Brought to the Supreme Court
Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition in the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s recall and allowance of the amendment. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding the trial court acted within its discretion because the amendment was formal and permissible even after arraignment with leave, and because the informations already sufficiently alleged publication in Makati. Petitioner sought review before the Supreme Court under Rule 45, raising three principal questions: (1) whether the RTC of Makati had jurisdiction over the alleged libel; (2) whether the amendment was formal or substantial; and (3) whether the trial court committed grave abuse in recalling the prior quashal and permitting the amendment.
Court’s Analysis on Venue and Jurisdiction under Article 360, RPC
The Court examined the wording of the original informations, which stated that petitioner wrote for the newspaper “which is published in English in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and of general circulation in the Philippines and abroad.” The Court concluded that this allegation sufficiently indicated that the newspaper was published in Makati City and therefore vested the RTC of Makati with jurisdiction under Article 360. The Court emphasized substance over form: the informations conveyed the material fact that the paper was published in Makati, which is the jurisdictional predicate prescribed by Article 360 for venue in libel cases.
Court’s Analysis on Whether the Amendment Was Formal or Substantial
Applying Section 14, Rule 110 and the test articulated in People v. Casey, the Court analyzed whether the amendment merely added precision or whether it introduced new material facts that would prejudice the defense. The amendment explicitly added that the libelous article “was printed and first published in the City of Makati, more particularly at 3817 Mascardo street, Makati City and/or at 1098 Chino Roces Avenue (formerly Pasong Tamo) corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City.” The Court characterized this as a formal amendment because it only clarified and specified what was already alleged in the original informations (that the newspaper was published in Makati). The amendment did not change the nature of the offense, increase the penalty, affect the essence of the crime, or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment; petitioner’s defenses and evidentiary strategy would remain applicable.
Court’s Review of the Allegation That Section 6, Rule 110 Is Inapplicable
Petitioner argued that the general provision of Section 6, Rule 110 on jurisdictional allegations is not contr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 143547)
Case Caption and Decision Information
- Report citation: 511 Phil. 605.
- Division: First Division.
- G.R. No.: 167474.
- Decision date: November 15, 2005.
- Author of the Decision: Justice Ynares‑Santiago.
- Case parties: Petitioner — Conrado Banal III; Respondents — Hon. Delia H. Panganiban (in her capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC‑Makati, Branch 64), Ma. Teresa G. Winternitz, Cristina G. Feibel, Raquel L. Gonzalez, and People of the Philippines.
- Relief sought: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the October 15, 2004 Decision and the March 17, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 73017.
- Subject of challenge: Alleged grave abuse of discretion in the June 14, 2002 Order issued by Judge Delia H. Panganiban recalling her April 9, 2002 Order.
Antecedent Facts — Complaint and Publications
- Complainants: Ma. Teresa G. Winternitz (also referred to as Maria Teresa G. Winternitz in parts of the records), Cristina G. Feibel, and Raquel L. Gonzalez, identified as officers of Welbilt Construction Corporation and Wack Wack Condominium Corporation.
- Petitioner’s writings: Two articles by Conrado R. Banal III entitled "House of the Rising Sun" (August 1, 2000) and "Heist Cold Beer!" (August 12, 2000) published in the "Breaktime" column of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
- Nature of complaint: Six informations for libel were filed in the RTC, Makati City, Branch 64, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 01‑693 to 01‑698, entitled People of the Philippines v. Conrado R. Banal III, et al.
- Similarity of informations: Except for parties’ names and the specific article, the six informations were similarly worded and alleged conspiracy between the accused columnist and a source to attack the honesty, virtue and reputation of Maria Teresa G. Winternitz and to expose her to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
Contents of the Informations (Representative Excerpt)
- Allegation of time and place: "on or about the 1st day of August 2000 in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court..."
- Roles alleged: Conrado R. Banal III alleged as columnist/writer of "Breaktime" of the Philippine Daily Inquirer published in Makati and of general circulation; Sylvia G. Cancio alleged as source of defamatory information.
- Substance alleged: The article was described as injurious and defamatory relative to Maria Teresa G. Winternitz and intended to insinuate that she, as a nominal stockholder, board member and officer of the corporations, was engaged with family members in anomalous, unlawful and illegal transactions regarding sale, resale, occupancy, possession and ownership by unit buyers.
- Included phrase in the original information: the newspaper is "published in English in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and of general circulation in the Philippines and abroad."
Procedural Posture — Arraignment and Motion to Quash
- Plea: Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.
- Motion to Quash: On February 11, 2002, petitioner moved to quash the six informations on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
- Grounds for quashal: Petitioner argued the informations failed to allege (a) the actual residence of the complainant at the time of the offense, or (b) the place where the allegedly libelous article was printed and first published.
- Trial court ruling (April 9, 2002): The RTC granted the motion to quash and dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the uniform allegation that the article was "published in English in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and of general circulation in the Philippines and abroad" did not meet the Article 360 requirement to allege that the libelous article was printed and first published in Makati City or that the offended party was a resident of Makati City.
Motion for Reconsideration and Amendment by Respondents
- Filing: On May 1, 2002, respondents filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and moved for leave to amend the informations.
- Respondents’ contention: Failure to allege that the libelous articles were printed and first published in Makati was a formal defect curable by amendment.
- Trial court view on amendment: The trial court considered the amendment formal because it would not prevent the accused from questioning the court’s jurisdiction nor affect his defense; the accused could always disprove the jurisdictional allegation by showing the articles were not printed and first published in Makati.
Trial Court Recall Order and Subsequent Petition to Court of Appeals
- RTC action: On June 14, 2002, Judge Panganiban issued an order recalling the April 9, 2002 Order and allowed amendment of the informations (the June 14 Order is the subject of the petition alleging grave abuse).
- Petitioner’s remedy: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion in recalling the quashal order.
- Court of Appeals disposition: The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion and holding that the recall corrected the earlier dismissal in accord with law and jurisprudence; the amendment was one of form and allowable even after arraignment.
The Amendment Allowed by the Trial Court
- Content of the amendment: The informations were amended to state: "That the libelous article above‑quoted was printed and first published in the City of Makati, more particularly at 3817 Mascardo street, Makati City and/or at 1098 Chino Roces Avenue (formerly Pasong Tamo) corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City."
- Timing and leave: The amendment was made after petitioner’s arraignment and with prior leave of court.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Framed issues:
- Whether the RTC of Makati City has jurisdiction over the offense.
- Whether the amendment was formal or substantial.
- Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in recalling the earlier order granting the quashal of the informations and allowing the informations to be amended.
- Petitioner’s stated legal questions (as presented in petition):
- (A) Whether the failure of criminal informations for libel to allege the place where the offended parties actually reside