Case Summary (G.R. No. 184800)
Petitioner and Respondent Roles
Petitioners were among the individuals indicted for libel arising from articles posted on PEPCI-managed internet fora. Respondent judge: Presiding Judge Cesar Untalan of RTC Makati, Branch 149 (public respondent) whose orders admitting an Amended Information and denying motions to quash are challenged in the petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Key Dates
- Complaint filed before Makati City Prosecutor: October 18, 2005.
- Prosecutor’s Resolution finding probable cause and filing Informations: May 5, 2006.
- Secretary of Justice reversed probable cause: June 20, 2007.
- RTC Order quashing initial Information: October 3, 2006.
- RTC Order granting prosecution’s motion for reconsideration and directing amendment: March 8, 2007.
- Amended Information filed: March 20, 2007.
- RTC Order denying motion to quash Amended Information: April 22, 2008.
- RTC Joint Resolution denying reconsideration: August 12, 2008.
- Supreme Court decision granting petition: May 5, 2010.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary statutory provision: Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 4363), governing venue for written defamation (libel). The decision is rendered under the framework of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is post-1990).
Procedural History Leading to the Petition
Gimenez filed a criminal complaint for thirteen counts of libel against multiple PEPCI officers and members. The Makati City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed Informations. Several accused sought review before the Secretary of Justice, who reversed the prosecutor and directed withdrawal, holding that “internet libel” as a distinct crime did not exist. Separately, petitioners filed a motion to quash the Information before the RTC Makati on grounds of lack of jurisdiction (venue), non-punishability of “internet libel” under Article 353, and defects in the Information. The RTC initially quashed the Information for failure to allege proper venue, later granted the prosecution’s reconsideration and ordered amendment of the Information; the prosecution filed an Amended Information alleging the article “was first published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City.” Petitioners moved to quash the Amended Information; the RTC denied the motion and likewise denied reconsideration, prompting the present petition for certiorari and prohibition to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the petition should be dismissed for failure to respect the judicial hierarchy (i.e., appropriate recourse to intermediate courts).
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by admitting the Amended Information that allegedly failed to properly allege jurisdictional venue under Article 360, particularly by equating the complainant’s access to an internet-published article in Makati with the statutory requirement that the libel be “printed and first published” there.
Legal Standards on Venue and Jurisdiction in Libel Cases
Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional; for libel, Article 360 (as amended by RA No. 4363) expressly limits venue to (a) the place where the libelous article was printed and first published, or (b) where any of the offended parties actually resided at the time of the offense. The amendment aimed to prevent harassment by litigants who would lay venue in remote jurisdictions to inconvenience accused persons. Precedent (Agbayani, Macasaet, Chavez, and related decisions) reiterates that where a complainant relies on the place of printing and first publication as basis for venue, the Information must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first published.
Supreme Court’s Exercise of Discretion over Hierarchy Rule
The Court acknowledged the general rule on respect for the judicial hierarchy but invoked the exception for cases presenting purely legal questions. Because the core dispute involved a pure question of law on jurisdictional venue under Article 360—whether an allegation that a private complainant “first published and accessed” an internet article in a given city suffices to allege printing and first publication—the Supreme Court exercised its discretionary authority to abridge the review process and take the case despite the hierarchy rule.
Analysis of Amended Information and Internet Publication
The Amended Information alleged that the defamatory article “was first published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City,” and characterized the website as “a website accessible in Makati City.” The Court held that equating a complainant’s access to an internet-published article in a place with the statutory el
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 184800)
Case Citation and Court
- Decision reported at 634 Phil. 348, First Division, G.R. No. 184800, dated May 05, 2010.
- Decision authored by Associate Justice Carpio Morales, J.
- Concurring: Puno (Chairperson), Leonardo‑De Castro, Bersamin, and Villarama, Jr., JJ.
Parties
- Petitioners: Wonina M. Bonifacio, Jocelyn Upano, Vicente Ortuoste, and Jovencio Pereche, Sr. (co‑accused and trustees/officers associated with Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI)).
- Private respondent/complainant: Jessie John P. Gimenez (President of the Philippine Integrated Advertising Agency, Inc.; acting on behalf of the Yuchengco Family, in particular former Ambassador Alfonso Yuchengco and Helen Y. Dee, and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (Malayan)).
- Public respondent: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 149 (Presiding Judge Cesar Untalan issued the orders under review).
- Other accused: Philip Piccio, Mia Gatmaytan, Ma. Anabella Relova Santos (officers of PEPCI), John Joseph Gutierrez, Jeselyn Upano, Jose Dizon, Rolanda Pareja, Elvira Cruz, Cornelio Zafra, Victoria Gomez Jacinto, Jurencio Pereche, Ricardo Loyares, Peter Suchianco, Trennie Monsod, and a John Doe (administrator of pepcoalition.com).
Nature of the Case and Subject Matter
- Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing: (1) Order of April 22, 2008 denying petitioners’ motion to quash the Amended Information for libel; and (2) Joint Resolution of August 12, 2008 denying reconsideration.
- Underlying criminal accusations: thirteen (13) counts of libel under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), arising from materials allegedly published on internet websites affiliated with PEPCI (pepcoalition.com, pacificnoplan.blogspot.com, and yahoo group no2pep2010@yahoogroups.com) between August 25 and October 2, 2005.
- Accusations triggered by alleged derogatory posts attacking the Yuchengco Family, Yuchengco Group of Companies (YGC), and Malayan; petition cites one of the posted articles dated August 25, 2005, including quoted Filipino passages.
Factual Background
- PEPCI: formed by disgruntled planholders of Pacific Plans, Inc. (PPI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation, itself owned by the YGC; planholders could not collect or avail of benefits due to PPI’s liquidity concerns and corporate rehabilitation filing before the Makati RTC.
- PEPCI maintained a public website (pepcoalition.com), a blogspot (pacificnoplan.blogspot.com), and a Yahoo group (no2pep2010@yahoogroups.com) to provide a forum for planholders to seek redress.
- Gimenez accessed the referenced websites in Makati on various dates and alleged he read thirteen (13) articles maliciously and recklessly published by the accused that contained highly derogatory statements and false accusations.
- Quoted extract from one article posted on August 25, 2005, reproduced in the complaint, containing Filipino-language complaints and calls to boycott YGC; the quote was attached to the complaint as Annex "F".
Criminal Complaint and Informations
- On October 18, 2005, Gimenez filed a criminal complaint before the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office on behalf of the Yuchengco Family and Malayan.
- By Resolution dated May 5, 2006, the Makati City Prosecutor (signed by 1st Assistant City Prosecutor Romulo Nanola) found probable cause and filed thirteen (13) separate Informations (Criminal Case Nos. 06‑873 to 06‑885) charging libel.
- The accusatory portion of Information for Criminal Case No. 06‑876 alleged that petitioners, as trustees holding legal title to pepcoalition.com, conspired and were responsible for posting and publishing a defamatory article on August 25, 2005, with the object of discrediting complainants; the Information alleged the website was "of general circulation, and publication to the public" and stated the alleged defamatory text was posted on the site.
Administrative/Preliminary Proceedings by Other Authorities
- Several accused petitioned for review to the Secretary of Justice, who by Resolution of June 20, 2007 reversed the finding of probable cause and directed withdrawal of the Informations for libel. The Justice Secretary opined that the crime of "internet libel" was non‑existent and therefore could not be charged under Article 353 of the RPC.
- The Yuchengcos’ motion for reconsideration of the Justice Secretary’s resolution remained unresolved at the time of the decision.
Petitioners’ Motion to Quash and Grounds Advanced
- Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash (dated June 6, 2006) Criminal Case No. 06‑876 before RTC Branch 149 on grounds that:
- The Information failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC.
- The acts alleged are not punishable by law because "internet libel" is not covered by Article 353 of the RPC.
- The Information was fatally defective for failure to designate the offense charged and the acts/omissions constituting libel.
- Cited authorities in support included Macasaet v. People and argued that the Information failed to allege the place where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published or that offended parties resided in Makati.
Initial RTC Ruling, Reconsideration, and Amended Information
- Order of October 3, 2006: RTC Branch 149, while finding probable cause existed, quashed the Information citing Agustin v. Pamintuan because the Information lacked allegations that offended parties resided in Makati at the time of the offense or that the libelous article was printed and first published in Makati (complainants’ address listed in complaint‑affidavit was at Yuchengco Tower in Binondo, Manila).
- Prosecution moved for reconsideration, contending the Information conferred jurisdiction, citing Banal I