Title
Foz, Jr. vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 167764
Decision Date
Oct 9, 2009
Columnists and publisher charged with libel for criticizing a physician; Supreme Court dismissed case due to improper jurisdiction, allowing refiling.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167764)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioners: Vicente Foz, Jr. and Danny G. Fajardo
Respondent: People of the Philippines

Key Dates

• July 5, 1994 – Publication of the contested newspaper article
• October 17, 1994 – Filing of Information for libel in RTC Iloilo City
• March 1, 1995 – Arraignment; petitioners pleaded not guilty
• December 4, 1997 – RTC conviction and sentencing for libel
• February 20, 1998 – Denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (RTC)
• November 24, 2004 – Court of Appeals (CA) affirms RTC decision
• April 8, 2005 – CA denies petitioners’ motion for reconsideration
• October 9, 2009 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (freedom of speech and press)
• Revised Penal Code: Article 353 (libel), Article 355 (penalties)
• Republic Act No. 4363, amending RPC Article 360 (venue for written defamation)
• Jurisprudence on venue and jurisdiction: Macasaet v. People; Chavez v. Court of Appeals; Agustin v. Pamintuan; Fukuzume v. People

Facts of the Case

On July 5, 1994, petitioners published in Panay News an opinion piece accusing Dr. Portigo of diagnostic negligence and profiteering at the expense of patient Lita Payunan, who underwent delayed and alleged botched surgeries, was later diagnosed with cancer, and died on July 2, 1994. The article criticized broader medical and hospital practices as exploitative.

Procedural History

An Information for libel was filed in RTC Iloilo City on October 17, 1994. After arraignment and trial, the RTC convicted both petitioners on December 4, 1997, imposing an indeterminate imprisonment sentence (3 months 11 days to 1 year 8 months 21 days) and a ₱1,000 fine each. Their motion for reconsideration was denied February 20, 1998. The CA affirmed on November 24, 2004, and denied reconsideration April 8, 2005. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.

Issues Raised

  1. Whether the article constituted libel under Article 353, RPC.
  2. Whether malice was proven or the publication was protected as a privileged communication.
  3. Whether petitioner Fajardo, as publisher, is vicariously liable for the columnist’s opinions.
  4. Whether RTC Iloilo City had jurisdiction over the libel charge given venue requirements in Article 360, RPC.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

• Jurisdictional Objection: Venue is essential in criminal prosecutions and may be raised at any stage.
• Article 360, RPC (as amended): Requires filing in the court of the province or city where the defamatory writing was printed and first published or where the offended party resides.
• Information Deficiencies: Allegation that Panay News had

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.