Title
People vs. Santiago
Case
G.R. No. L-17663
Decision Date
May 30, 1962
Isauro Santiago's defamatory speech, amplified but not permanent, was ruled as oral defamation, not libel, and had prescribed before charges were filed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17663)

Applicable Law

The legal provisions pertinent to this case stem from the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. Specifically, Article 355 outlines the nature of libel, while Article 358 defines oral defamation, also known as slander. Article 353 offers a definition of libel, describing it as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, or defect that may damage the reputation of an individual.

Factual Background

The information presented against Isauro Santiago accused him of committing libel by making defamatory statements against Mayor Lacson during a speech. These statements included serious allegations, claiming that Mayor Lacson had committed acts of sexual misconduct. Santiago moved to quash the information, asserting that the crime should be classified as oral defamation instead of libel and that the statute of limitations had already expired since the event allegedly occurred more than six months before the information was filed on August 11, 1960.

Judicial Findings

The Court of First Instance in Manila granted Santiago's motion to quash the information, concluding that the allegations constituted oral defamation under Article 358, which prescribes a six-month limitation period for filing such a charge. The prosecution appealed this decision, arguing that the statements made through an amplifier system fell under the definition of libel as outlined in Article 355, by qualifying as a published medium.

Analysis of Legal Classification

The prosecution contended that the use of an amplifier system should be viewed as similar to other mediums listed in Article 355, such as radio. However, the court disagreed, noting that the transmission through an amplifier is not the same as radio transmission, which involves electromagnetic waves without wires. Instead, an amplifier operates with conducting wires, emphasizing a significant difference in the nature of the publication methods.

Moreover, the court pointed out that the mediums referenced in Article 355 share a common characteristic: permanence. This understanding supports the distinction between oral defamation, which is transient, and libel, which has lasting implications. Consequently, the cou

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.