Case Summary (G.R. No. 208146)
Chronology of Proceedings
• July 6 & 13, 2002 – Dio allegedly sends defamatory emails to Desmond and third parties.
• February 26, 2003 – Two separate Informations (Crim. Cases No. 9108 & 9109) filed in RTC, Balanga City.
• April 2003–February 2004 – Dio’s petition to suspend proceedings denied; motions to quash and for reconsideration denied.
• October 11, 2005–February 12, 2009 – Omnibus motions to quash granted partially: RTC quashes Informations for failure to allege publication.
• March 5, 2009 – Desmond appeals; Court of Appeals (CA) reverses quash but orders amendment under Rule 117, Sec. 4 (Jan 8, 2013); denies reconsideration (July 10, 2013).
• July 29, 2013 – Dio files Rule 45 petition; Supreme Court gives due course (April 2, 2014) and receives memoranda.
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution – Due process and jurisdictional requirements in criminal prosecutions.
1987 Rules of Court, Rule 117, Sec. 4 – Mandates opportunity to amend Informations defective yet curable.
Revised Penal Code, Art. 355 – Defines libel by written or similar means.
RA 10175 (Anti-Cybercrime Law) – Contemporary expansion of libel to electronic media (post-2002).
Defects in the Informations
RTC’s 2009 order found that neither Information alleged publication—a requisite element of libel. Dio also contended:
• Venue not properly averred (where first published or where offended party resided).
• Prosecutor lacked authority absent proper venue allegations.
• Emails not “publication” under Art. 355 at time of offense.
• Good-faith and legal duty defenses should quash.
Amendment Under Rule 117, Section 4
Rule 117, Sec. 4 requires that if an Information’s defect is curable by amendment, the court must order amendment rather than outright quash. Supreme Court jurisprudence holds:
• Failure to allege facts constituting an offense (e.g., publication) is curable pre-arraignment.
• Prosecution must be given its “day in court” by correcting formal or substantive deficiencies.
SC finds the CA correctly reversed the quash, directed amendment, and that Dio’s petition lacks legal basis to deny amendment.
Venue and Prosecutorial Authority Issues
SC distinguishes between:
• Face-evident defects warranting quash (e.g., Information signed by unauthorized prosecutor).
• Defects not evident on face (e.g., venue averments).
Here, venue and prosecutorial authority defects are not immediately apparent; they can be clarified by amendment. Only after amendment, if proper venue lies elsewhere, may RTC dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or authority.
Publication and Libel under Article 355
Article 355 criminalizes libel by “writing or similar means,” and in 2002 did not explicitly include email. Whether an email constitutes “public” dissemination is a trial‐level defense issue. SC holds that:
• Absence of publication averment is a curable defect under Rule 117.
• Coverage of email under Art. 355 and under RA 10175 raises trial‐based questions of evidence and defense, not quashal.
Good Faith and Qual
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 208146)
Facts
- Private respondent Timothy Desmond served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium; petitioner Virginia Dio was Treasurer and Board Member of the same corporation.
- On December 9, 2002, Desmond filed a criminal libel complaint against Dio.
- Two Informations dated February 26, 2003 were lodged as Criminal Case Nos. 9108 and 9109 before the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Branch 3.
- Criminal Case No. 9108 charged that on or about July 6, 2002, in Morong, Bataan, Dio “willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sent electronic messages” to Desmond and other persons, containing allegations of overpayment, personal gain, and mismanagement, thereby allegedly besmirching Desmond’s honor.
- Criminal Case No. 9109 charged that on or about July 13, 2002, Dio sent further electronic messages to corporate officers and third parties, accusing Desmond and family of overvaluing assets, incurring massive losses, and siphoning funds for personal gain.
- Both Informations framed these electronic messages as defamatory acts “causing or tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt” against Desmond, “to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party,” and invoked Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code.
Procedural History
- April 22, 2003: Dio filed a petition to suspend the criminal proceedings; denied February 6, 2004.
- July 13, 2004: Trial court denied Dio’s motions for reconsideration and to quash the Informations, setting arraignment on July 20, 2005.
- September 13, 2005: Trial court denied Dio’s motion for partial reconsideration.
- October 11, 2005: Dio sought leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and an Omnibus Motion to quash for failure to allege publication and lack of jurisdiction.
- February 7, 2006: Trial court denied the Omnibus Motion and set arraignment for March 9, 2006.
- February 12, 2009: On Dio’s partial reconsideration, trial court granted quashal of both Informations for failure to allege publication; ordered dismissal.
- March 5, 2009: Desmond filed Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals.
- January 8, 2013: Court of Appeals reversed trial court’s quashal and remanded for amendment of the Informations under Rule 117, Section 4.
- July 10, 2013: Court of Appeals denied Dio’s motion for reconsideration of its January 8, 2013 Decision.
- July 29, 2013: Dio filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
- June 19 and July 10, 2014: Desmond and Dio submitted their memoranda, respectively.
- April 2, 2014: Supreme Court gave due course to the Petition and required memoranda.
Issues
- Whether an information’s failure to allege publication or correct venue is a defect curable by amendment before arraignment.
- Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in quashing the Informations without granting or denying the prosecution the opportunity to amend.
- Whether libel by electronic mail falls within Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code at the time of the alleged offense.
- Whether jurisdictional defects or the prosecuto