Case Summary (G.R. No. 118757)
Petitioner
Roberto Brillante — candidate for Councilor in Makati in 1988; author of the open letter and speaker at the January 7, 1988 press conference; convicted of multiple counts of libel by RTC-Manila and RTC-Makati and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Respondent(s)
People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee); Court of Appeals (appellate respondent). Private complainants included Dr. Nemesio Prudente, Atty. Jejomar Binay, and Francisco Baloloy, among others.
Key Dates
- January 7, 1988: Press conference and distribution of the open letter by Brillante.
- January 10–12, 1988: Publication of the open letter in various newspapers.
- January 15–16, 1988–1989: Filing of complaints with fiscal’s office and later informations with the RTCs.
- RTC decisions (1993) convicted Brillante on several counts of libel.
- Court of Appeals decisions (1994–1995) affirmed convictions.
- Supreme Court decision (2004) reviewed and modified awards for moral damages.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution (freedom of speech considerations applied in context of defamation law).
- Revised Penal Code: Article 353 (definition of libel), Article 354 (privileged communications), Article 355 (penalties for libel), Article 90(4) and Article 91 (prescription rules).
- 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (as amended), particularly provisions affecting interruption of prescription by filing complaints with the fiscal’s office.
Factual Background
Brillante publicly accused Binay, Prudente and associates of organizing meetings to “win the election at all costs,” to engage in “operation Dirty Fingers” involving terrorism and use of marshals and hitmen, and specifically named individuals alleged to be designated hitmen. He distributed an open letter addressed to the President and spoke to about fifty journalists at the press conference; reporters published news items and the open letter appeared in multiple newspapers.
Publications and Media Coverage
Journalists who attended the press conference wrote news reports. The open letter was published as “Plea to Cory—Save Makati” in several broadsheets. Editors and publishers of those newspapers were initially charged along with Brillante; several co-accused were later acquitted, had charges dismissed, or were not brought to trial.
Criminal Complaints and Informations Filed
Multiple criminal complaints for libel were filed by Prudente, Binay, Baloloy and others. Informations followed in RTC-Manila and RTC-Makati charging Brillante (and various co-accused) with libel based on the public statements and the published open letter.
Trial Court Decisions (RTC-Manila and RTC-Makati)
RTC-Manila convicted Brillante on four counts of libel and ordered payment of P1,000,000 in moral damages in those cases (Prudente). RTC-Makati convicted Brillante on five counts, imposing imprisonment and fines and awarding P1,000,000 moral damages to Binay and P50,000 to Baloloy; several co-accused were acquitted or the cases archived for lack of jurisdiction or failure to arraign.
Court of Appeals Decisions
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC convictions. It held that (a) the prescriptive period for libel was interrupted by the filing of complaints with the fiscal’s office (citing Rule amendments and Francisco v. Court of Appeals), (b) the open letter and press statements constituted libel because they imputed criminal conspiracy and other discreditable acts, (c) the communications were not privileged because they were published to the general public rather than addressed solely to officials with remedial power, and (d) co-accused were not similarly situated as Brillante because different evidence and circumstances applied.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reviewed (1) whether the libel offenses had prescribed when informations were filed; (2) whether Brillante was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of libel; (3) whether he was denied equal protection in being convicted while some co-accused were acquitted or had charges dismissed/archived; and (4) whether penalties and awarded moral damages were excessive.
Prescription — Legal Framework
Article 90(4) of the Revised Penal Code prescribes that libel is subject to a one-year prescription. Article 91 provides that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information and resumes if proceedings terminate without conviction or acquittal. The Court’s precedents interpreted “filing of the complaint” to include filing for preliminary investigation with courts (People v. Olarte) and filing with the fiscal’s office (Francisco v. Court of Appeals), thereby interrupting prescription.
Prescription — Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court held that the one-year prescriptive period was interrupted by the filing of complaints with the fiscal’s office, relying on Francisco which extended Olarte’s rationale to complaints filed with the prosecutor. Therefore, the informations filed later in the RTCs had not been filed after prescription had run. Brillante’s contention that earlier precedents required filing in court only was rejected; the Court found no conflict between Olarte and Francisco and held the prosecutorial filing rule applicable to these cases.
Libel — Elements and Application
Libel under Article 353 requires: (a) a defamatory imputation, (b) publication, (c) identity of the person defamed, and (d) malice. The Court found the first three elements clearly satisfied: Brillante’s statements and open letter imputed criminal and discreditable acts (assassination plot, terrorism), were published in multiple media outlets and to journalists, and identified specific persons (Prudente, Binay, Baloloy, etc.).
Privileged Communication — Law and Application
Article 354 recognizes privileged communications (absolute and conditional). Conditional privilege for private communications in performance of legal, moral, or social duty requires (1) a legal/moral/social duty or interest to protect, (2) communication to persons/officers having duty or power to remedy the matter, and (3) good faith absence of malice. The Court held Brillante failed the second and third requisites: he did not limit the communication to remedial authorities and instead published broadly to the public; and the statements were based on unconfirmed intelligence and insufficiently verified, negating good faith and indicating malice.
Malice and Good Faith — Court’s Analysis
Malice is presumed under Article 354 where no good intention or justifiable motive is shown; it is present when the author knows the imputation is false or acts with reckless disregard for the truth. The Court concluded malice was established by the totality of circumstances: Brillante’s reliance on unnamed intelligence reports without adequate verification, deliberate broad publication rather than targeted communication to competent authorities, and the nature and seriousness of the accusations demonstrated at least reckless disregard for truth.
Political Speech Argument — Court’s Rejection
Brillante argued the statements were political speech or “political libel” protected by the Constitution because they pertained to an election and public figures. The Court rejected the categorical immunity argument: while speech about public officials and matters of public interest enjoys wider latitude (and New York Times v. Sullivan was cited for the malice standard for public officials), unfounded, malicious, or unr
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 118757)
Case Caption, Source and Decision
- Reported at 483 Phil. 568, Second Division, G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571, decided October 19, 2004; Decision authored by Justice Tinga.
- Parties: Roberto Brillante (also known as Bobby Brillante), petitioner; respondents: Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines.
- Consolidated petitions for review on certiorari from convictions for libel arising from an open letter and statements at a January 7, 1988 press conference.
Factual Background
- On January 7, 1988, Roberto Brillante, then a candidate for Councilor in Makati, held a press conference at the Makati Sports Club attended by about 50 journalists.
- During the conference Brillante accused Atty. Jejomar Binay (then OIC Mayor and candidate for Makati Mayor) of plotting the assassination of Augusto “Bobby” Syjuco and of engaging in terrorism, intimidation and harassment of the Makati electorate.
- Brillante circulated copies of an open letter addressed to then President Corazon C. Aquino which detailed allegations implicating Atty. Jejomar Binay and Dr. Nemesio Prudente (then President of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines) in an assassination plot against Syjuco and in other election-related terrorism schemes.
- Journalists present produced news articles reporting Brillante’s accusations; the open letter was published under the title “Plea to Cory--Save Makati” in newspapers including People’s Journal, Balita, Malaya and Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Content of the Open Letter (Pertinent Allegations)
- The open letter alleged reports that Atty. Binay and his group plotted the assassination of Mr. Syjuco, identifying meetings and named or described individuals said to be involved.
- Specific allegations included:
- A December 14, 1987 meeting at Puerto Azul involving Binay, Dr. Prudente, and persons described as Commander Luming, Major Rafael Nieva, and Commander Francis Baloloy, with the subject “Winning the Election at all Costs.”
- A December 17, 1987 meeting wherein an operation “Dirty Fingers” was discussed, involving terrorism, use of public school teachers, threats or killings of ward and precinct leaders, planting of squads, mobilizing “amarshalsa” to ferry hitmen, and sheltering or pointing out targets.
- On December 8, 1987, Emilio Aniceto (described as a hitman linked to Dr. Prudente) was said to be assigned to assassinate Syjuco, with a physical description included.
- On December 10, 1987, Major Rafael Nieva was described as teamed with Aniceto and characterized as a notorious killer allegedly hired by Dr. Prudente.
Criminal Complaints and Informations Filed
- Atty. Jejomar Binay filed four complaints for libel against Brillante and various journalists/editors/publishers (People’s Journal personnel and News Today personnel) and other defendants for publications relating to the open letter and press conference.
- Francisco Baloloy, identified in the open letter as an attendee at the alleged meeting, filed a complaint for libel against Brillante, Domingo Quimlat (Balita), and Arcadio Sison (A. Sison & Associates).
- Dr. Nemesio Prudente filed four complaints for libel against Brillante and editors/publishers of the newspapers that published the open letter.
- Five informations for libel were filed against Brillante in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati; four informations were filed against Brillante and co-accused in RTC-Manila on January 16, 1989.
- Co-accused included editors, publishers and others; some charges against co-accused were dismissed or the cases archived due to non-arraignment or inability to bring them to court.
Trial Court (RTC-Manila and RTC-Makati) Rulings
- RTC-Manila (Branch 35) found Brillante guilty on four counts of libel and sentenced him to indeterminate penalties of four months arresto mayor to two years prision mayor per count, fined P2,000 per count, and ordered payment of P1,000,000 in moral damages to Dr. Nemesio Prudente for the four counts; two-thirds of costs assessed against Brillante; Arcadio Sison acquitted in the two cases against him. (Decision dated January 25, 1993)
- RTC-Makati convicted Brillante on five counts of libel, sentencing him in each case to imprisonment of four months arresto mayor to two years prision correccional and fines of P4,000 per count, with subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency; ordered Brillante to pay P1,000,000 in moral damages to Atty. Jejomar Binay in the four charges and P50,000 in moral damages to Francisco Baloloy in one charge; several co-accused were acquitted or cases archived as appropriate. (Decision dated March 22, 1993)
Appeals to the Court of Appeals (CA) and CA Decisions
- Brillante appealed RTC-Manila decision to CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 14475; CA promulgated its decision on September 27, 1994 affirming the RTC-Manila conviction.
- CA held that prescription did not bar prosecution because the one-year prescriptive period was interrupted by Prudente filing his complaint with the fiscal’s office on January 15, 1988 (later clarified under Rule 110).
- CA found the open letter to be malicious defamation that imputed criminal conspiracy upon Prudente.
- CA rejected privileged communication claim because evidence did not show Brillante wrote/published the letter out of a legal, moral or social duty.
- CA rejected equal protection claim: co-accused were not similarly situated because their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- CA rejected double jeopardy argument: multiple publications constitute separate offenses.
- Motion for reconsideration denied by CA Resolution dated January 19, 1995.
- Brillante appealed RTC-Makati decision to CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 15174; CA rendered decision on February 28, 1995 affirming the RTC-Makati conviction.
- CA held filing of the complaint before the fiscal’s office interrupts prescription, relying on Article 91 and principles of initial step in criminal proceedings.
- CA ruled open letter was not privileged communication because it contained libelous matter and was circulated to the public rather than to officials with jurisdiction to inquire.
- CA reasoned editors/publishers/writers could not be held liable because their news reports adequately informed readers that the allegations were Brillante’s and were reported as news.
Issues Raised in the Consolidated Petitions to the Supreme Court
- In G.R. No. 118757 (petition filed March 13, 1995), Brillante argued:
- (I) The offense of libel had prescribed when informations were filed.
- (II) He was not guilty because the letter was written/published without malice and out of justified/ honest purpose to inform authorities.
- (III) Publicly known paramilitary activities of Prudente made allegations plausible.
- (IV) At most the publication constituted political libel, which he urged should be held non-punishable.
- (V) Penalty imposed was cruel and excessive, especially the moral damages awarded.
- In G.R. No. 121571 (petition filed October 10, 1995), Brillante repeated similar assignments of error:
- (I) Offense had prescribed.
- (II) Publication was privileged communication.
- (III) Publication was made without malice.
- (IV) At most political libel, thus not punishable.
- (V) Decision erroneous.
- (VI) Violation of equal protection.
- (VII) Penalty cruel and excessive.
Arguments of the Petitioner (Brillante) as Presented
- Relied on People v. Tayco (79 Phil. 509) to argue prescriptive period is interrupted only by filing complaint in court, not by filing with fiscal’s office; maintained People v. Olarte and Francisco v. Court of Appeals did not overturn Tayco in his favor and that the amended Rules on Criminal Procedure (1985) cannot be applied retroactively to his case.
- Asserted communications were privileged as made to protect elections and prevent loss of life; claimed honest belief in truth of reports and reliance on unnamed “intelligence sources.”
- Claimed constitutional protection for criticism of public figures; urged that political libel should be e