Case Summary (G.R. No. 184800)
Petitioners
Wonina M. Bonifacio, Jocelyn Upano, Vicente Ortuoste, and Jovencio Pereche, Sr., together with other PEPCI officers, trustees, and members, collectively challenged the RTC’s orders admitting and refusing to quash an Amended Information for libel.
Respondents
Public respondent: RTC-Makati, Branch 149, presided over by Judge Cesar Untalan.
Private respondent: Jessie John P. Gimenez, acting for Alfonso Yuchengco, Helen Y. Dee, and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.
Key Dates
• October 18, 2005 – Criminal complaint for thirteen counts of libel filed before the Makati City Prosecutor.
• May 5, 2006 – Prosecutor’s Resolution finding probable cause and filing of Informations in RTC.
• June 20, 2007 – Secretary of Justice reverses and orders withdrawal for lack of “internet libel” concept.
• October 3, 2006 and March 8, 2007 – RTC orders quashing and then admitting Amended Information after reconsideration.
• April 22, 2008 – RTC Order denying petitioners’ motion to quash the Amended Information.
• August 12, 2008 – RTC Joint Resolution denying reconsideration.
• May 5, 2010 – Supreme Court decision granting the petition.
Applicable Law
Revised Penal Code, Article 355 in relation to Article 353 (libel) and Article 360 as amended by Republic Act No. 4363 (venue for written defamation). 1987 Philippine Constitution principles on jurisdiction and judicial hierarchy.
Factual Background
PEPCI maintained a publicly accessible website (pepcoalition.com), blogspot, and Yahoo group to air grievances over PPI’s failure to honor pre-need educational plans. Gimenez accessed these sites in Makati between August 25 and October 2, 2005, and discovered thirteen articles allegedly containing malicious and false attacks on the Yuchengco Family and Malayan. One post urged planholders to boycott YGC and file criminal complaints.
Procedural History
The Makati City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed thirteen separate Informations for libel in RTC-Makati. Some accused petitioners appealed to the Secretary of Justice, who reversed the finding for lack of a defined “internet libel” crime. Concurrently, petitioners moved to quash the Information in RTC-Makati for absence of jurisdiction, failure to allege punishable acts, and defective allegations. The RTC initially quashed the Information for lack of venue facts, then, on prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, granted leave to amend. An Amended Information was filed alleging that the defamatory article was “first published and accessed” by the complainant in Makati. Petitioners again moved to quash, but the RTC denied relief, prompting the present petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Issues
- Whether petitioners violated the rule on hierarchy of courts by resorting directly to the Supreme Court.
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the Amended Information that allegedly still lacks jurisdictional allegations under Article 360.
Legal Analysis on Venue in Libel Cases
Venue in criminal actions is jurisdictional, and Article 360, as amended by RA 4363, expressly limits venue to either (a) where the libelous article was printed and first published, or (b) where the offended private party actually resides at the time of the offense. This amendment sought to prevent forum-shopping and harassment by remote libel suits. Allegations in the Information must specify these venue facts with particularity.
Court’s Rationale on Internet Libel
The Supreme Court recognized that imputing venue based o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 184800)
Facts
- Petitioners are officers and trustees of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI), an association of planholders of Pacific Plans, Inc. (PPI), a subsidiary of Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation under the Yuchengco Group of Companies (YGC).
- PPI filed for corporate rehabilitation and suspended payments on its educational pre-need plans; planholders formed PEPCI and maintained a public website (pepcoalition.com), a blogspot and a Yahoo e-group to air grievances.
- Private respondent Gimenez, acting for the Yuchengco Family (including Alfonso Yuchengco and Helen Dee) and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (Malayan), alleged that from August 25 to October 2, 2005, he accessed thirteen (13) libelous articles on those sites containing false, malicious and derogatory statements against complainants.
- One exemplar article, posted August 25, 2005 on pepcoalition.com, accused the Yuchengcos of deceit in negotiations and encouraged legal actions and economic boycott.
- On May 5, 2006, the Makati City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed thirteen separate Informations for libel (Criminal Case Nos. 06-873 to 06-885), including Criminal Case No. 06-876 relating to the August 25 article.
Procedural History
- Several accused petitioners sought review with the Secretary of Justice, who on June 20, 2007 reversed the prosecutor’s finding, ruling “internet libel” non-existent under Article 353 RPC.
- Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash Criminal Case No. 06-876 (June 6, 2006) before the Makati RTC, arguing lack of jurisdiction, non-punishable acts and defective Information for failure to allege venue or properly designate the offense.
- By Order of October 3, 2006, the RTC quashed the Information for absence of allegations that complainants resided in Makati or that publication first occurred there.
- The prosecution moved for reconsideration, citing Banal III v. Panganiban and asserting the need only for formal amendment; petitioners opposed, stressing venue is jurisdictional and not amendable.
- On March 8, 2007, RTC grante