Case Summary (G.R. No. 161032)
Facts of Publication
Between May 11 and June 25, 1999, four “Direct Hit” columns in Remate accused Atty. So of extortion, corruption, smuggling, and ill-gotten wealth. The articles imputed criminal wrongdoing without factual support and disparaged his character and religious affiliation.
Procedural History
Four criminal informations were filed on September 8, 1999, in RTC Pasay (Branch 112). All accused pleaded not guilty. The RTC admitted stipulations on publication and identity and heard testimony and certifications confirming a single Atty. Carlos T. So in the Bureau of Customs. On November 17, 2000, the RTC convicted all five for libel under Articles 353 and 355, imposed prison terms, and awarded damages. The CA affirmed on June 17, 2003. Separate Rule 45 petitions were consolidated before the Supreme Court.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether the published columns are “qualifiedly privileged” communications exempt from the presumption of malice.
- Whether malice must be proven in fact.
- Whether the accused properly identified the complainant.
- Whether the editors and publisher can be held liable under Article 360 despite non-participation in writing or editing.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 4 (Freedom of speech and of the press)
– Revised Penal Code: Article 353 (Libel defined), Article 354 (Qualified privileged communications), Article 355 (Penalties), Article 360 (Persons responsible)
– New York Times Co. v. Sullivan actual-malice standard as adapted in Philippine jurisprudence
Freedom of the Press Versus Responsibility
The Constitution guarantees press freedom but subjects it to responsible exercise. Journalists must verify allegations and adhere to ethical standards (e.g., presumption of innocence, prompt correction of errors). Unsubstantiated attacks motivated by rumor or reliance on a single unnamed source betray that responsibility.
Qualified Privileged Communication Analysis
Article 354’s enumerated privileges and the expanded “fair commentary” doctrine do not protect columns founded on baseless imputations. The Court found Tulfo made no bona fide effort to ascertain facts; his allegations were demonstrably false. The presumption of malice under Article 354 is rightly applied where reports are neither “fair and true” nor made in good faith without commentary.
Identity of the Complainant
Despite petitioner’s claim of mistaken identity, evidence (witness testimony, Bureau of Customs certification, and Tulfo’s own follow-up column) unequivocally established that Atty. Carlos “Ding” So was the sole referent.
Liability of Editors and Publisher
Under Article 360, authors, editors, and publishers of periodicals are criminally responsible for defamatory content regardless of claimed non-participation. Cambri, Salao, Barlizo, and Pichay occupy positions of authority in Remate and thus share liability w
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 161032)
Facts of the Case
- Atty. Carlos “Ding” So of the Bureau of Customs filed four separate criminal informations on September 8, 1999 with RTC Pasay City, Branch 112, docketed as CC Nos. 99-1597 to 99-1600.
- Accused: Erwin Tulfo (author/columnist), Susan Cambri (managing editor), Rey Salao (national editor), Jocelyn Barlizo (city editor), Philip Pichay (president, Carlo Publishing House, Inc.).
- Charged with libel per se for articles in the “Direct Hit” column of the daily tabloid Remate on May 11, 12, 19, 1999 and June 25, 1999.
- Each information charged that the articles imputed complainant as extortionist, corrupt public official, smuggler, and illegally wealthy, intending to discredit and expose him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
The Four Informations and Alleged Libelous Articles
- CC No. 99-1598 (May 11, 1999): Called Atty. So “pinakamayaman na yata na government official” and “pinakagago at magnanakaw na miyembro” of Iglesia ni Cristo; threatened exposés of his “raket.”
- CC No. 99-1599 (May 12, 1999): Described So as “lintek” in Customs Intelligence, extorting hundreds of thousands from importers, bribing agencies, likened him to buwayang in a corbata.
- CC No. 99-1600 (May 19, 1999): Grouped So with Daniel Aquino of the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Unit as “magnanakaw na tunay,” collecting money from brokers under threat to cargo release.
- CC No. 99-1597 (June 25, 1999): Reported So filed a P10 M libel suit against Remate; Tulfo challenged So to steal more and warned of divine punishment.
Pre-Trial Admissions
- Atty. So was not assigned at South Harbor on those publication dates.
- Petitioners and complainant did not personally know each other during relevant dates.
- Remate is a genuine newspaper/tabloid of general circulation.
- Existence of the column “Direct Hit,” its authorship, and content were admitted.
- Prosecution’s qualified admission: media persons have duty to expose corruption.
Prosecution’s Evidence and Testimonies
- Oscar M. Ablan: Knew Atty. So since 1992 in Customs Intelligence; confirmed articles referred to complainant and were untrue.
- Gladys Fontanilla: Bureau of Customs Records Officer; certified that only one employee named “Atty. Carlos T. So” alias “Ding So” existed in the Bureau.
- Atty. James Fortes, Jr.: Knew So personally in Iglesia ni Cristo; after reading articles, concluded the imputations were false.
- Complainant Atty. So: Private complainant since October 1981 in BOC; OIC of Cu