G.R. No. 230299 - Penalosa vs. Ocampo, Jr.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 230299)

Applicable Law

•   1987 Constitution – rules on appellate jurisdiction and separation of prosecutorial functions.  
•   Revised Penal Code (RPC) Article 355 – defines libel “by means of writing, printing… or any similar means.”  
•   Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) Section 4(c)(4) – criminalizes libel committed through a computer system or similar means.  
•   2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 122, Sections 1 and 3 – appeal from final orders.  
•   2000 Rules of Court, Rule 65 – certiorari procedure where no plain, speedy, adequate remedy exists.  
•   Administrative Code of 1987, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12, Section 35(1) – only the Solicitor General may represent the State in criminal appeals.

Procedural History

•   September 25, 2012 – information for libel filed by City Prosecutor’s Office.  
•   June 24, 2014 – RTC denied suspension, found probable cause, issued arrest warrant.  
•   September 16, 2014 – Department of Justice (DOJ) Resolution ordered withdrawal of information, citing absence of “Internet Libel” law in 2011 and lack of libelous character.  
•   January 26, 2015 – RTC Order quashed information and dismissed case after independent assessment that no crime existed at time of posting.  
•   April 27, 2016 – CA Decision granted petitioner’s certiorari petition, annulled RTC dismissal, held Facebook post punishable under RPC Article 355 as “similar means.”  
•   November 25, 2016 – CA denied reconsideration.  
•   April 11, 2017 – petitioner filed Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.  
•   July 4, 2018 – Supreme Court issued Temporary Restraining Order enjoining RTC proceedings; later required reply, which was filed January 17, 2019.

Issues Presented

1.  Whether certiorari was the proper remedy against the RTC’s Order granting withdrawal of the information.  
2.  Whether the private offended party had legal personality to assail the withdrawal order.  
3.  Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the libel information and whether a 2011 Facebook post is punishable under RPC Article 355.

Remedy Under Rule 122 vs. Certiorari

•   An order granting a motion to withdraw information is a final order disposing of the criminal case. Under Rule 122, Sections 1 and 3, appeal—not certiorari—is the proper remedy from final orders.  
•   Certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists.  
•   In Santos v. Orda, Jr., this Court held that an order granting withdrawal of information must be appealed.

Standing of the Private Offended Party

•   Under the doctrine that the criminal case belongs to the State, only the Office of the Solicitor General may appeal final orders of dismissal or withdrawal of information.  
•   The private offended party’s role is limited to testifying for the prosecution and pursuing civil liability.  
•   Precedents (People v. Court of Appeals; Personal Collection Direct Selling v. Carandang) confirm that private offended parties lack authority to file certiorari petitions against dismissal of criminal cases.

Independent Assessment and Nullum Crimen Sine Lege

•   Grave abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court fails to independently assess probable cause and dismisses solely on prosecutorial or DOJ recommendation.  
•   In this case, RTC Judge Capco-Umali conducted a four-page, independent review: confirmed absence of an “Internet Libel” law in August 2011; applied the principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege; and noted that even if statements were libelous under RPC Article 353, no criminal liability could attach in 2011.

Construction of Libel Provisions

•   RPC Article 355’s phrase “any similar means” is interpreted through noscitur a sociis to exclude computer-based means, as Congress explici

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 230299)

Facts

On August 3, 2011, petitioner Jannece C. PeAalosa posted on her Facebook account statements imputing respondent Jose A. Ocampo, Jr. with defects or vices (e.g., “brainless,” “lazy,” “beggar,” “envious”), exposing him to public contempt and ridicule.
The post preceded the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, under which “internet libel” would later become punishable.
An Information for libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code was filed on September 25, 2012 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 212, docketed as Criminal Case No. MC12-14668.

Procedural History

Petitioner moved for reconsideration before the City Prosecutor and for deferment and suspension of proceedings in the RTC; the City Prosecutor denied reconsideration and the RTC issued an arrest warrant on June 24, 2014.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Department of Justice (DOJ); on September 16, 2014 the DOJ granted it and directed withdrawal of the Information.
RTC Judge Rizalina T. Capco-Umali granted both the prosecution’s Motion to Withdraw Information and petitioner’s Motion to Quash on January 26, 2015, dismissing the case as moot and academic because no law penalized internet libel in 2011.
Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which on April 27, 2016 annulled the RTC order, held that Facebook posts constitute “similar means” under Article 355, and remanded for further proceedings.
The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on November 25, 2016.
On April 11, 2017, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court; this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on July 4, 2018, and invited comment and reply.

Issues

Whether respondent properly resorted to a petition for certiorari instead of filing an appeal from the RTC’s order granting withdrawal of the Information.
Whether respondent, a