G.R. No. 237620 - Tulfo vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 237620)

Factual Background

On July 22–23, 2004 the return to the Philippines of Angelo dela Cruz was the subject of live news coverage at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. ABS-CBN conducted exclusive live audio-video coverage and had an arrangement permitting Reuters Television Service to air the footage. GMA-7 subscribed to Reuters and CNN and received live or taped feeds. A Reuters live feed contained footage captured by ABS-CBN, which GMA-7 recorded and aired for over one and a half minutes. GMA-7 personnel allegedly did not realize the feed included ABS-CBN footage; upon recognition of an ABS-CBN reporter on the feed, GMA-7 stopped airing it. ABS-CBN then broadcast accounts on its programs "Insider" and "Magandang Umaga Bayan," during which statements by Erwin Tulfo and Lynda Jumilla accused GMA-7 of having stolen or pirated ABS-CBN's exclusive footage.

The Criminal Charges

Private respondents filed a criminal complaint for libel on July 27, 2004. Two criminal Informations dated January 28, 2013 charged petitioners with Libel under Article 353, Revised Penal Code, alleging that petitioners publicly and maliciously imputed the crime of theft or piracy of exclusive video footage to the management and news officers of GMA Network, Inc. The Informations reproduced the contested statements aired on "Insider" and "Magandang Umaga Bayan" and alleged publication, identifiability of the offended parties, and malice.

Lower Court Proceedings and Rulings

On February 14, 2013 the RTC issued an Order finding probable cause and directed the issuance of warrants of arrest, which resulted in petitioners posting bail on February 18 and 19, 2013. Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the judicial determination of probable cause and moved to suspend proceedings and recall the warrants on February 22, 2013. Prior to resolution, petitioners filed an Ad Cautelam Motion to Quash the Informations on March 8, 2013. The RTC set arraignment for May 7, 2013. By Order dated April 16, 2013, the RTC denied the motions, ruled that determination of probable cause in preliminary investigation is for the public prosecutor and that the trial court should not override it, and held that truth and absence of malice are defenses to be determined at trial. The RTC further found the Informations sufficient in form and substance. Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion to Disqualify with Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied in its June 11, 2013 Order.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, asserting grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in denying the motion to quash. On August 17, 2017 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC Orders dated April 16 and June 11, 2013. The Court of Appeals held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was improper because petitioners had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by proceeding to trial and, if necessary, raising the denial of the motion to quash on appeal after an adverse judgment. The Court of Appeals also found that a facial examination of the Informations showed compliance with Section 6, Rule 110 and that issues of truth, identifiability, and malice are matters of defense to be resolved at trial.

Issues Presented

The petition to the Supreme Court presented four assignments of error: (A) that the Court of Appeals incorrectly ruled a petition for certiorari to be improper; (B) that the Court of Appeals incorrectly ruled the Informations sufficient in form and substance; (C) that the Court of Appeals incorrectly dismissed the RTC's alleged grave abuse of discretion; and (D) that the Court of Appeals incorrectly upheld the validity of the Informations despite private respondents' admissions of unauthorized use of the footage.

Petitioners' Contentions

Petitioners argued that the denial of their Ad Cautelam Motion to Quash was tainted by grave abuse of discretion thus making Rule 65 certiorari appropriate. They asserted that the Informations failed to allege essential elements of libel, specifically identifiability and malice, and thus were insufficient in form and substance. Petitioners further contended that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Informations notwithstanding admissions by private respondents that they had used ABS-CBN footage without authorization.

Respondents' Position and Prosecution Record

Private respondents maintained that petitioners publicly imputed that GMA-7 stole ABS-CBN's exclusive footage and that the statements were susceptible of a criminal charge of libel. The People, through the Quezon City Prosecutor, filed the Informations after the preliminary investigation that resulted in a finding of probable cause. The Office of the Solicitor General submitted a Comment in opposition to the petition before the Supreme Court, supporting the rulings below.

Legal Standards on Certiorari and Grave Abuse of Discretion

The Supreme Court reiterated that a special civil action for certiorari is generally not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information because the denial is interlocutory and the accused has the adequate and speedy remedy of proceeding to trial and appealing an adverse judgment. The Court recognized limited exceptions to this rule as stated in Maximo v. Villapando, Jr. and related authorities, including when an order is issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court adopted the definition of grave abuse of discretion from Pascua v. People as a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment amounting to evasion of duty, and noted that the petitioner bears the burden to show extraordinary circumstances justifying certiorari.

Sufficiency of the Informations and Elements of Libel

The Supreme Court applied the test of Section 6, Rule 110 and precedent such as People v. Cilot to determine whether the Informations stated the material facts that establish the essential elements of the offense. The Court reiterated that an information need not reproduce verbatim the statute but must state the name of the accused, the offense, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the offended party, and approximate date and place. The Court identified the elements of libel as (a) allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication; (c) identifiability of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice. The Court found that the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 237620)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners were various ABS-CBN personnel and executives charged in two criminal Informations for Libel filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
People of the Philippines and private respondents Felipe L. Gozon, Gilberto R. Duavit, Jr., Marissa L. Flores, Jessica A. Soho, Grace dela Pena-Reyes, and John Oliver T. Manalastas were the offended parties and complainants.
Petitioners filed a Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Judicial Determination of Probable Cause, an ad cautelam Motion to Quash the Informations, and later a Motion to Disqualify, all of which the RTC denied.
Petitioners sought relief by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals and thereafter filed the present petition before the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dated August 17, 2017 dismissing the Rule 65 petition and affirming the RTC Orders dated April 16, 2013 and June 11, 2013.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision in toto, with Justice Inting authoring the Decision and Justices Leonen (Chairperson), Hernando, Delos Santos, and J. Lopez concurring.

Key Factual Allegations

The case arose from live coverage of the arrival of an overseas worker, Angelo dela Cruz, at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport on July 22 and 23, 2004.
ABS-CBN conducted exclusive live audio-video coverage of Angelo's arrival and granted Reuters Television Service rights to air the footage under an existing agreement.
GMA-7 was a subscriber to Reuters and CNN and received live or taped video feeds via subscription.
GMA-7 aired the Angelo footage that was carried by Reuters for over one and one-half minutes, and GMA-7 personnel allegedly did not know that Reuters's feed contained ABS-CBN footage.
ABS-CBN newscasts hosted by petitioners aired statements accusing GMA-7 of stealing or pirating ABS-CBN's exclusive footage, and those statements formed the bases of the libel complaints later lodged by the private respondents.

Criminal Informations Alleged

Two criminal Informations dated January 28, 2013 charged petitioners with Libel defined under Article 353, Revised Penal Code, arising from statements aired on Insider and Magandang Umaga Bayan on July 22 and 23, 2004.
The Informations alleged that petitioners publicly and maliciously imputed the discreditable act of stealing or pirating exclusive video footage to the private respondents and named the offended parties and the manner of publication.
The Informations alleged the elements of Libel as the imputation of a discreditable act, publication, identifiability of offended parties, and the existence of malice.

Lower Court Proceedings

On February 14, 2013 the RTC issued an Order finding probable cause and ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest on the two Informations.
Petitioners posted bail on February 18 and 19, 2013 and filed a Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and an ad cautelam Motion to Quash the Informations on February 22 and March 8, 2013 respectively.
The RTC set the arraignment for May 7, 2013 and denied petitioners' motions in the Order dated April 16, 2013 and denied the subsequent Motion to Disqualify and Motion for Reconsideration in the Order dated June 11, 2013.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on August 17, 2017, and petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

RTC Ruling

The RTC held that the determination of probable cause in preliminary investigation pertained exclusively to the public prosecutor and that the trial court should not substitute its judgment for that of the prosecutor.
The RTC ruled that allegations of truth and absence of malice were matters of defense appropriate for full trial and not grounds to quash the Informations.
The RTC found the Informations sufficient in form and substance and denied the ad cautelam Motion to Quash on the ground that the Informations alleged the essential elements of Libel.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC Orders dated April 16, 2013 and June 11, 2013.
The CA ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was an improper remedy to challenge the denial of a motion to quash in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.
The CA held that the subject Informations complied with Section 6, Rule 110, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and that petitioners' assertions of truth,