Case Summary (G.R. No. 164845)
G.R. No. 181732: Radio and Television Libel – Facts and Procedure
On November 28–29, 2001, Henares allegedly made defamatory statements against Willy Tieng on a TV program (IBC-13) and on DWBR-FM radio. Three informations (Crim. Cases 02-3585 to 02-3587) were filed December 4, 2002 in Makati RTC Branch 145. Henares moved to quash for defective form, lack of particularity, and improper venue under Art. 360. The RTC denied the motion. On certiorari, the CA held that Art. 360 applies to libel by “similar means” under Art. 355 (including radio/TV) and requires allegations of first publication in Makati or respondent’s residence. Willy Tieng sought SC review of that ruling.
G.R. No. 164845: Civil Libel Consolidation – Facts and Procedure
On March 25, 2002, the Tieng brothers filed a civil libel complaint in Makati RTC Branch 62 for remarks on November 23, 28, 2001 (TV) and November 28–29, 2001 (radio), seeking damages. A related criminal info (Crim. No. 02-1103) for the November 28 radio broadcast was filed in Makati RTC Branch 145. Both actions were consolidated in Branch 62. Henares then moved to dismiss the civil case for lack of venue allegations under Art. 360. Branch 62 dismissed Civil Case 02-359 for lack of jurisdiction and reset the criminal case to Branch 145. The Tieng brothers filed certiorari alleging Art. 360 applies only to written defamation and that venue in civil cases is waivable; Henares asserted he raised venue as an affirmative defense.
Issues Raised
- Does Art. 360 RPC’s venue and jurisdiction scheme extend to libel by radio and television broadcasts?
- Was the dismissal of the civil action for libel by Makati RTC Branch 62 compliant with Art. 360?
- Is venue under Art. 360 for a civil libel action jurisdictional or waivable?
Applicable Law
• RPC Art. 355 defines libel by writings or “similar means” (including radio, theatrical or cinematographic exhibitions).
• RPC Art. 360 (as amended) mandates that criminal and civil actions for written defamation be filed in the CFI of the locality where the libelous article is printed and first published, or where the offended party resides, and that the court first acquiring jurisdiction over either action excludes all others.
• Rule 110 § 15 (Rules of Court): general venue rule for criminal actions.
• Rule 111 § 1 and Rule 16 § 6: consolidation of civil and criminal actions and affirmative defenses in pleadings.
• 1987 Constitution: guarantees on due process and freedom of expression.
Court’s Rationale
• The 1965 amendment of Art. 360 (R.A. 4363) sought to prevent harassment by out-of-town libel suits and applies equally to libel by radio and television as “similar means” under Art. 355, using ejusdem generis.
• Radio and TV shares the permanence and simultaneous dissemination of written media, warranting the same venue restrictions to forestall inconvenience to the accused.
• For broadcast libel, jurisdiction vests only if the information alleges that the broadcast emanated from a station within the court’s ter
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 164845)
Facts and Antecedents
- This en banc decision (G.R. No. 164845; G.R. No. 181732; G.R. No. 185315) was promulgated on July 13, 2021 by Justice Carandang, addressing three consolidated petitions arising from libel allegations stemming from Hilarion M. Henares, Jr. (“Henares”) broadcasting defamatory statements against William, Wilson, and Willy Tieng (“Tieng brothers”) on his radio/TV program “Make My Day with Larry Henares.”
- G.R. No. 185315 (Henares as petitioner) challenged the Court of Appeals’ denial of his motion to quash Criminal Case No. 02-0194 before RTC Parañaque Branch 274. He argued that Article 360, RPC, governing venue for written defamation, likewise applied to radio broadcasts, and that the Information failed to allege where the broadcast was first published or where the offended party resided.
- G.R. No. 181732 (Willy Tieng as petitioner) assailed the CA’s grant of his certiorari petition quashing three libel Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 02-3585, 02-3586, 02-3587) before RTC Makati Branch 145. These involved libelous statements on both IBC-13 television (Nov 28, 2001) and DWBR-FM 104.3 radio (Nov 28–29, 2001). The trial court denied motions to quash for want of jurisdiction; the CA held Article 360 extended to “similar means” under Article 355, including radio.
- G.R. No. 164845 (Tieng brothers as petitioners) challenged RTC Makati Branch 62’s Orders dismissing Civil Case No. 02-359 for improper venue and lack of jurisdiction, and de-consolidating Criminal Case No. 02-1103 (later filed re: Nov 28, 2001 radio broadcast), on the ground that under Article 360 the civil and criminal actions must be filed or consolidated where the first action was instituted.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Article 355, RPC (“Libel means by writings or similar means”), listing writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical or cinematographic exhibition, or any similar medium.
- Article 360, RPC, third paragraph as amended by R.A. 4363, prescribing exclusive venue for criminal and civil actions for “written defamations as provided for in this chapter,” namely:
• where the libelous article is printed and first published; or
• where any offended party actually resides at the time of the offense; and
• requiring civil and criminal actions to be filed in the same court, which first acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of others. - Rule 110, Sec. 15(a) of the Rules of Court (general venue for criminal actions: where the offense or any essential ingredient occurred).
- Rule 111, Sec. 1 (consolidation of civil and criminal libel actions).
- Rule 16, Sec. 6 (allowing affirmative defenses in the answer if no motion to dismiss is filed).
- Rule 117, Sec. 3(b) (ground to quash an information for lack of jurisdiction).
- Rule on Cybercrime Warrants, Sec. 2.1 (venue for cybercrime offenses, including cyber libel under RA 10175).
Issues
- Do the venue and jurisdiction rules of Article 360, RPC, apply to libel comm