G.R. No. L-32815 - People vs. Gomez

The case involves a motion to quash filed in Criminal Case No. 18204 concerning an information for libel against Vicente Aceveda.
The libelous letter, dated July 12, 1968, was addressed to Mr. J. Kasten, the manager of Muller & Phipps (Manila) Ltd., and contained accusations against Edgardo M. Biasbas, the company's Internal Auditor.
The letter alleged Biasbas's dishonesty, inefficiency, and lack of qualifications, suggesting malicious intent to harm Biasbas's reputation.

The motion to quash was based on two grounds:
1. The facts charged did not constitute an offense.
2. The writing was considered privileged communication under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code.
The presiding judge, Hon. Amador Gomez, dismissed the information without detailing which ground was sustained or providing reasons for the dismissal.

The order of dismissal noted the lack of opposition from the prosecution to the motion to quash, which the court interpreted as a sign of merit in the motion.
The court granted the motion to quash, canceled the bail bond, and dismissed the case without further elaboration on the legal basis for its decision.

The government appealed the dismissal, arguing that neither ground for the motion to quash was meritorious.
The Solicitor General contended that the statements in the letter were clearly defamatory, imputing dishonesty and lack of virtue to Biasbas.

The court found that the statements in the letter were indeed defamatory, as they contained serious accusations against Biasbas.
The element of publicity was established since the letter was distributed and posted publicly, and malice was presumed due to the nature of the allegations.

The court confirmed that the offended party, Edgardo Biasbas, was clearly identifiable in the letter, fulfilling the requirement for a libel claim.
The court concluded that the first ground of the motion to quash was without factual or legal basis.

The second ground for the motion to quash, claiming the letter was a privileged communication, was also found to lack merit.
The court stated that the privileged nature of a communication is a matter of defense that must be proven at trial, not a valid ground for quashing the information.

Respondent Aceveda argued that the lack of opposition from the prosecution indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the case.
The court clarified that the absence of opposition was not a sufficient basis for dismissal and did not reflect a la...continue reading