G.R. No. 184800 - Bonifacio vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184800)

Factual Background

Private respondent Jessie John P. Gimenez filed a criminal complaint on behalf of the Yuchengco Family, including former Ambassador Alfonso Yuchengco and Helen Y. Dee, and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. alleging thirteen counts of libel against officers and trustees of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) and others. The complaint alleged that PEPCI maintained a website at pepcoalition.com, a blog at pacificnoplan.blogspot.com and a Yahoo Group, and that between August 25 and October 2, 2005 Gimenez accessed articles on these sites that maliciously attacked the reputation of the Yuchengco Family and Malayan.

Nature of the Allegation and the Sample Publication

The complaint appended an article posted on August 25, 2005 on pepcoalition.com that contained statements critical of the Yuchengco Family and urged collective action and boycott. The Prosecutor attached the full text as annex and alleged that the accused, as trustees holding legal title to the website, knew the keyword and password necessary to post the material and thus were responsible for the defamatory publication.

Proceedings Before the Makati City Prosecutor

By Resolution of May 5, 2006 the Makati City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed thirteen separate Informations for libel in the RTC. Several accused sought review before the Secretary of Justice who, by Resolution of June 20, 2007, reversed the finding of probable cause on the ground that the crime of “internet libel” did not exist and directed withdrawal of the Informations. The Yuchengco parties’ motion for reconsideration of the Justice Secretary’s resolution remained unresolved at the time of the Supreme Court decision.

Petitioners’ Motion to Quash the Information

Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash before the RTC on June 6, 2006 contending that the Information failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC, that internet libel was not covered by Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, and that the Information was fatally defective for failure to designate the offense and the specific acts constituting libel. They relied on Macasaet v. People and related authority to argue that the Information did not allege the place of printing and first publication or that the offended parties resided in Makati.

The RTC’s Initial Quashal and Reconsideration

By Order of October 3, 2006 the RTC quashed the Information, citing Agustin v. Pamintuan, because the Information lacked allegations that the offended parties actually resided in Makati at the time of the alleged offense or that the libelous article was printed and first published in Makati. The prosecution moved for reconsideration, invoked Banal III v. Panganiban, and asserted that any defect was formal and curable by amendment. Petitioners opposed, maintaining that venue is jurisdictional and not amendable.

Admission of the Amended Information

By Order of March 8, 2007 the RTC granted the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration and ordered amendment to cure the alleged want of venue. The prosecution filed an Amended Information dated March 20, 2007 which alleged that the offending article was posted on a website “accessible in Makati City” and “was first published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City.” Petitioners moved to quash the Amended Information on the ground that it still failed to allege that the articles were “printed and first published” in Makati and that the prosecution erroneously laid venue in the place where the offended party accessed the internet publication.

RTC’s Denial of the Motion to Quash

By Order of April 22, 2008 the RTC, applying Banal III, found the Amended Information sufficient in form and denied petitioners’ motion to quash. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied by Joint Resolution of August 12, 2008. Petitioners thereafter brought the present petition for Certiorari and Prohibition to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court posed two principal issues: first, whether petitioners violated the rule on the hierarchy of courts and thus rendered the petition dismissible; and second, whether grave abuse of discretion attended the RTC’s admission of the Amended Information in light of the jurisdictional requirements for venue in libel prosecutions under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA No. 4363.

Application of the Rule on Judicial Hierarchy

The Court recognized the general policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy which ordinarily requires that extraordinary writs be sought first in lower appellate courts. The Court observed that exceptions exist when the case presents purely legal questions. Because the core issue here was a pure question of law concerning jurisdiction and venue in libel cases under Article 360, the Court exercised its discretionary authority to resolve the case and abbreviated the review process.

Legal Principle on Venue and Jurisdiction in Libel Cases

The Court reiterated that venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions and that Article 360, as amended by RA No. 4363, prescribes limited venues for written defamation: where the libelous article was printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resided at the time of the offense. The Court relied on Macasaet v. People and Agbayani v. Sayo to restate that an Information should allege whether the offended party was a public officer or private individual and where he actually resided, and whenever possible the place where the defamation was printed and first published should be alleged; that allegation is a sine qua non if the venue is laid on the basis of where it was printed and first published.

Analysis of the Amended Information’s Allegations

The Court examined the Amended Information’s allegation that the article “was first published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City” and concluded that this allegation did not satisfy the Article 360 requirement of alleging where the material was “printed and first published.” The Court found that equating the private complainant’s first access to an internet-published article with the place of printing and first publication would permit the very harassment that RA No. 4363 sought to prevent. The Court explained that internet publications are accessible nationwide and that allowing venue to be laid where an offended party accessed a website would open the floodgates to libel suits in any jurisdiction where th

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 184800)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Wonina M. Bonifacio, Jocelyn Upano, Vicente Ortuoste and Jovencio Pereche, Sr. were the petitioners who were accused and sought relief by petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 149 was the public respondent whose Order dated April 22, 2008 and Joint Resolution dated August 12, 2008 were assailed.
Jessie John P. Gimenez was the private respondent and private complainant who filed the criminal complaint for libel on behalf of the Yuchengco Family and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc..
The petition challenged the RTC's admission of an Amended Information for libel and the RTC's denial of the petitioners' motions to quash and for reconsideration.

Key Factual Allegations

Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) maintained a publicly accessible website at pepcoalition.com and allegedly operated a related blogspot and Yahoo Group.
PEPCI was formed by planholders aggrieved by Pacific Plans, Inc.'s rehabilitation and alleged failure to honor pre-need educational plans tied to the Yuchengco Group of Companies.
Gimenez alleged that between August 25 and October 2, 2005, thirteen articles containing defamatory statements against the Yuchengco Family, YGC, and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. were posted on the PEPCI websites.
Gimenez cited a specific article posted on August 25, 2005 with language accusing the Yuchengcos of bad faith and urging action and boycott.
The Informations averred that the accused, as trustees, held legal title to pepcoalition.com and were responsible for posting and publishing the alleged defamatory material.

Statutory Framework

Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code was invoked in the informations as the penal provision for libel in relation to Art. 353.
Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, prescribed the venues where criminal and civil actions for written defamation may be filed.
Art. 360 and its amendment were construed as imposing jurisdictional venue limits to prevent harassment by laying venue in remote or distant fora.

Procedural History

Jessie John P. Gimenez filed the criminal complaint on October 18, 2005, leading to a prosecutor's finding of probable cause and filing of thirteen separate informations on May 5, 2006.
Several accused appealed to the Secretary of Justice, who reversed the prosecutor's finding by Resolution dated June 20, 2007, concluding that "internet libel" as a distinct crime was non-existent.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash on June 6, 2006, which the RTC initially granted by Order of October 3, 2006, citing lack of allegations that the offended parties resided in Makati or that the libel was printed and first published there.
The prosecution moved for reconsideration and the RTC, by Order of March 8, 2007, granted the motion and directed amendment of the Information to cure alleged venue defects.
The prosecution filed an Amended Information dated March 20, 2007, alleging that the article "was first published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City."
The RTC denied petitioners' subsequent Motion to Quash by Order of April 22, 2008 and denied reconsideration by Joint Resolution of August 12, 2008, prompting the present petition.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the RTC's assailed Order and Joint Resolution, and directed the RTC to quash the Amended Information and dismiss Criminal Case No. 06-876.

Issues Presented

The first issue was whether petitioners' failure to invoke a lower court remedy violate