Case Summary (G.R. No. 225366)
Lower Court Proceedings
The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 218) arraigned Fermin and Tugas on libel charges under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. After a joint trial, the RTC, in a January 27, 1997 decision, found both guilty, imposed an indeterminate penalty (arresto mayor to prisión correccional) for each count, awarded moral damages of ₱500,000 per complainant, and attorney’s fees of ₱50,000.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (September 3, 2002) affirmed Fermin’s conviction but acquitted Tugas for lack of participation in the publication. It reduced moral damages to ₱300,000 each and deleted attorney’s fees. The CA denied Fermin’s motion for reconsideration (March 24, 2003).
Issues on Review
Fermin raised four interrelated contentions:
- Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code requires proof of the publisher’s actual knowledge and participation.
- Liability under Article 360 is a rebuttable presumption.
- The challenged article is not libelous.
- The article is protected opinion under freedom of the press and fair-comment doctrine.
Applicable Legal Framework
Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Constitution governs, securing press freedom but recognizing limitations to protect reputation. Revised Penal Code: Article 353 defines libel; Article 355 prescribes penalties; Article 360 makes publishers, editors, and proprietors liable as if they authored the defamatory matter.
Publisher Liability Under Article 360
Supreme Court jurisprudence (U.S. v. Taylor; People v. Topacio and Santiago; U.S. v. Ocampo) establishes that anyone who publishes or causes the publication of defamatory matter is strictly liable, irrespective of actual knowledge or consent. Managers, editors, proprietors and those who furnish means for publication are prima facie responsible and cannot evade liability by claiming ignorance.
Fermin’s Control and Participation
Fermin admitted her role as publisher, president, and chairperson, handling business operations and editorial assignments. The Court held that her supervisory authority and control over tabloid content rendered her liable, and her plea of non-involvement was unpersuasive.
Acquittal of Co-accused Tugas
Although the Court recognized that double jeopardy bars reinstating Tugas’s conviction, it found the CA’s acquittal erroneous on the merits. Testimony showed his active participation in layout, type-size allocation, and approval of the offensive article; medical evidence confirmed he was capable of performing such duties.
Defamatory Character and Malice
The publication falsely accused the complainants of malversation (conversion of funds), evasion of justice, and gambling losses. It was distributed nationally, identified the Gutierrez spouses, and injured their honor. Fermin failed to prove truth. The article evidenced legal malice by its inherent defamation and actual malice through Fermin’s motive to discredit complainant Eddie during an electoral campaign.
Limits of Press Freedom
While public figures enjoy less protection, f
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 225366)
Procedural History
- Two libel informations were filed by spouses Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo Gutierrez before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 218 (Criminal Cases Nos. Q-95-62823 and Q-95-62824).
- The RTC, in its Joint Decision dated January 27, 1997, found Cristinelli S. Fermin (publisher) and Bogs C. Tugas (editor-in-chief) guilty of libel under Article 355, RPC; imposed an indeterminate penalty of 3 months, 11 days to 1 year, 8 months, 21 days of imprisonment for each case; awarded moral damages of ₱500,000 each and attorney’s fees of ₱50,000 jointly and solidarily.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision dated September 3, 2002:
- Reversed and set aside Tugas’s conviction (acquitted him for non-participation).
- Affirmed Fermin’s conviction with modification: moral damages reduced to ₱300,000 each; deleted attorney’s fees; costs against Fermin.
- The CA denied Fermin’s motion for reconsideration on March 24, 2003.
- Fermin petitioned the Supreme Court for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Facts of the Case
- On June 14, 1995, Gossip Tabloid published a headline and lead story alleging that complainants:
- Converted millions of pesos from cookware sales in the United States for personal use (malversation).
- Avoided prosecution in the United States by returning to the Philippines (evasion).
- Lost their earnings through irresponsible gambling (wastrel conduct).
- The article stated that Annabelle Rama Gutierrez could not have fled to the U.S. because creditors and authorities awaited her there; suggested she might go to Europe instead.
- Cristinelli Fermin was identified in the tabloid’s editorial box as publisher, president, and chairperson; she admitted control over business operations and assignment of editors.
- Bogs C. Tugas was identified as editor-in-chief; he later admitted handling the tabloid’s layout and approval of the offending article.
- Complainants asserted the allegations were false, malicious, publicly made, and caused dishonor, discredit, and contempt.
Issues Presented
- Whether Article 360, RPC liability of a publisher requires proof of actual knowledge, participation, or complicity in the preparation and approval of the libelous article.
- Whether the presumption of publisher liability under Article 360 is rebuttable by contrary evidence.
- Whether the published article is libelous.
- Whether the article is protected by the constitutional freedom of the press as fair and honest comment.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Relied on U.S. v. Taylor; People v. Topacio &a