Title
Soriano vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 225010
Decision Date
Nov 21, 2018
Eliseo Soriano convicted of libel for defamatory statements against Evangelist Wilde Almeda on his radio program; acquitted in a separate case due to lack of identifiable defamed individuals.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 225010)

Key Dates

• July 31, 1998 – Alleged libelous broadcast aired.
• January 15, 1999 – Information in Criminal Case No. IR-4848 filed.
• June 9, 2000 – Information in Criminal Case No. IR-5273 filed.
• June 8, 2012 – RTC consolidated judgment convicting petitioner for two counts of libel.
• August 17, 2015 – CA decision affirming RTC judgment.
• May 18, 2016 – CA resolution denying reconsideration.
• November 21, 2018 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution – Guarantee of freedom of speech and press, subject to libel provisions.
• Revised Penal Code, Articles 353 (definition and penalties for libel) and 354 (qualifiedly privileged communications).
• Rule 45, Rules of Court – Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Antecedent Facts

Petitioner, as anchorman of “Ang Dating Daan,” aired taped broadcasts on July 31, 1998, containing epithets—“gago,” “tarantadong pastor,” “pastor ng demonyo,” “bulaang propeta”—directed at leaders and members of JMCIM. The first information (IR-4848) alleged defamation of the group’s leader, pastors, and members, while the second (IR-5273) focused on Evangelist Wilde E. Almeda. Both informations charged that these statements were malicious, false, and intended to dishonor the complainants.

Trial Proceedings

• Arraignment – Petitioner pleaded not guilty in both cases and posted cash bonds.
• Prosecution’s Evidence – Witnesses Eudes Cuadro, Joel Cortero, Jerry Cabanes, and Liza Martinez for IR-5273; Joel Cortero as sole witness for IR-4848.
• Defense Evidence – Testimony of Marlon Igana.
• Demurrer to Evidence – Filed December 22, 2008; denied January 6, 2009.

RTC Ruling

The RTC found all elements of libel proven: defamatory imputation, malice, publication, and identification. It imposed fines of ₱6,000 for each count, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and denied civil damages.

CA Ruling

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s consolidated judgment in its August 17, 2015 Decision and denied reconsideration on May 18, 2016, holding that the prosecution proved malice, dishonor, and publication beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues on Appeal

Petitioner contended that the CA erred by:

  1. Failing to show dishonor or discredit to the complainants.
  2. Disregarding the absence of malice or ill will.
  3. Lacking an identifiable person in the alleged libelous statements.
  4. Convicting him despite no knowledge or consent in publication.
  5. Impairing freedom of expression through a chilling effect.

Supreme Court Ruling

  1. Libel Elements – Article 353 requires defamatory imputation, malice, publicity, and identifiability. All elements for the count against Almeda (IR-5273) were met.
  2. Defamatory Character and Malice – The terms used were plainly insulting, lacking any justifiable motive or qualified privilege. The Court agreed with the CA that Soriano intended to discredit and humiliate the complainants.
  3. Publication – Broadcast over DZAL constituted sufficient publication.
  4. Identificatio



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.