G.R. No. 167764 - Foz, Jr. vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167764)

Factual Background

On July 5, 1994 the newspaper Panay News published an article entitled "MEET DR. PORTIGO, COMPANY PHYSICIAN" that recounted the medical story of one Lita Payunan, a patient allegedly treated by Dr. Edgar Portigo of Iloilo City, and criticized the professional conduct of the physician; the article recited factual allegations concerning clinical diagnoses, surgical interventions, hospital readmission, a subsequent diagnosis of cancer, the family's expenditure of some P150,000, and Lita's death on July 2, 1994, and it extended the critique into a general denunciation of physicians and certain hospital practices.

Information, Arraignment and Plea

An Information dated October 17, 1994 charged petitioners under Article 353 and Article 355 with libel, alleging that on or about July 5, 1994 in Iloilo City they willfully and maliciously wrote and published the subject article in Panay News, thereby impeaching the virtue and reputation of Dr. Edgar Portigo; upon arraignment on March 1, 1995, petitioners pleaded not guilty.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Iloilo City rendered judgment on December 4, 1997 finding both petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of libel and imposing an indeterminate penalty of three months and eleven days of arresto mayor as minimum to one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prisión correccional as maximum, and a fine of P1,000 each; the RTC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration by Order dated February 20, 1998.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on November 24, 2004 affirmed the RTC decision in toto; the CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 8, 2005.

Issues Presented in the Petition

In their petition for review under Rule 45, petitioners contended that the CA erred in finding (one) that the article was libelous within the meaning of Article 353, (two) that malice existed and that the article was not a privileged communication protected by the Constitution and press freedom, and (three) that petitioner Danny Fajardo, as editor-publisher, should be held criminally liable for an opinion column that reflected the columnist's exclusive views.

Parties' Contentions on Merits

Petitioners maintained that the article was an opinion column expressing sympathy for a bereaved family and intended to serve the public good, that no malice in law or actual malice was proven, and that petitioner Fajardo, as publisher, need not share the columnist's views and therefore should not incur criminal liability; the Solicitor General countered that the petition sought review of factual determinations and that under Rule 45 only errors of law are generally reviewable, urging deference to the CA's factual findings unless the records show overlooked circumstances that would alter the result.

Threshold Jurisdictional Question

The Supreme Court identified and raised as threshold the question of whether the RTC of Iloilo City had jurisdiction over the charged offense, noting that petitioners first pressed the jurisdictional objection in their Reply before the Court and that, under precedents including Fukuzume v. People, lack of jurisdiction may be interposed or noticed at any stage and cannot be conferred or waived by the accused.

Venue Law for Libel Cases

The Court recited the governing rule in Article 360, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, that the criminal action for written defamation may be filed either in the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of the province or city where the libelous article was printed and first published, or in the province or city where the offended private individual actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense, and reiterated precedents, including Agbayani v. Sayo and Macasaet v. People, that territorial venue is an essential element of jurisdiction and is determined by the allegations in the information.

Application of Venue Rules to the Information

Applying Article 360 to the allegations, the Court found that the Information's reference to Panay News as "a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region" did not allege that the libel was printed and first published in Iloilo City, and that the Information likewise failed to allege the actual residence of the offended party, Dr. Edgar Portigo; the Court relied on Chavez v. Court of Appeals and Agustin v. Pamintuan to hold that circulation and employment or practice in a place do not suffice to establish venue or residence for purposes of Article 360.

Court'

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 167764)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Vicente Foz, Jr. and Danny G. Fajardo were the petitioners in a Rule 45 petition seeking review of a Court of Appeals decision affirming a Regional Trial Court conviction for libel.
People of the Philippines was the respondent as the prosecuting party below.
The petition assailed the November 24, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 22522 and the April 8, 2005 Resolution denying reconsideration.
The Supreme Court granted the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court and set aside the CA decision and resolution.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information alleged that on July 5, 1994 petitioners, respectively columnist and editor-publisher of Panay News, wrote and published an article entitled “MEET DR. PORTIGO, COMPANY PHYSICIAN.”
The article narrated the medical history and death of a patient, Lita Payunan, accused a named physician, Dr. Edgar Portigo, of wrongful diagnosis and negligent operations, and asserted that the family spent P150,000 for the purportedly wrong diagnosis.
The Information alleged that the article portrayed Dr. Edgar Portigo as wanting in professional integrity and that publication occurred “in the City of Iloilo” and within the jurisdiction of the RTC, Branch 23, Iloilo City.
Petitioners pleaded not guilty at arraignment on March 1, 1995 and proceeded to trial.

Charge and Statutory Framework

The Information charged petitioners with libel as defined in Article 353 and punishable under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code.
Venue and responsibility rules for written defamation were governed by Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, which prescribes filing in the court of the province or city where the libelous article was printed and first published or where the offended party actually resided at the time of the offense.
The petition for review was filed under Rule 45, Rules of Court.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Iloilo City convicted petitioners on December 4, 1997 and sentenced them to an indeterminate term (three months and eleven days of arresto mayor as minimum to one year eight months and twenty-one days of prisión correccional as maximum) and fined P1,000 each.
The RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in an order dated February 20, 1998.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in a November 24, 2004 Decision and denied reconsideration in an April 8, 2005 Resolution.
Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Issues Presented

Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in finding the subject article libelous within the meaning and intendment of Article 353.
Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in finding the existence of malice and in not finding the article constitutionally protected as privileged communication.
Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Danny G. Fajardo who was only the publisher and could not possibly share all opinions of the newspaper’s columnists.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioners contended that the article cons