Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reply
Reply
-versus-
FOR: LIBEL
REPLY TO OPPOSITION
issue then that came to fore and material to the said inquiry are Atty. Jurado's
published statements from late 1992 to the middle of February, 1993 where he
wrote of "(j)udges in a number of regional trial courts in Metro Manila (who) have
become so notorious in their dealings with litigants and lawyers that they are now
called the 'Magnificent Seven.' Aside from the "Magnificent Seven," he also wrote
about a group which he dubbed the "Dirty Dozen." In his column of October 21,
1992 he said that there are ". . . judges who have acquired such reputation for
graft and corruption that they are collectively known as the 'dirty dozen.' In his
November 9, 1992 column, he wrote about "a former appellate justice (who)
'holds office' at a restaurant near the Court of Appeals building. He is known as
the contact man of five CA divisions. Lawyers say that this former jurist really
delivers," "known for fixing cases for five CA divisions (that is what he tells
lawyers and litigants) for a fee. And in his column of March 24, 1993, he made
the claim that one can "get a temporary restraining order from a regional trial
court in Metro-Manila by paying the judge anywhere between P30, 000.00 and
P50, 000.00."
In the instant case, the alleged libelous act complained of is the
publication of the allegations of the accused-movants in their letter-complaint
against the private complainant, the Governor of the Province of Bukidnon, Hon.
Jose Ma. Zubiri, Jr. who is an elected public official, which letter-complaint, a
public record, indubitably deals with matters of public interest, as it involves the
purchase of the BRCI Tomato Paste Plant/Lot by the Bukidnon Provincial
Government under the administration of the herein private complainant. The
accused therefore have an interest and a duty thereto. As a rule, it is the right
and duty of a citizen to make a complaint of any misconduct on the part of public
officials, which comes to his notice. Thus, unlike in the case of In Re Emil P.
Jurado where the Supreme Court categorically stressed the importance in the
maintenance of an unmuzzled press and the free exercise of the rights of the
said article obviously referred to the crux of their letter-complaint. Nothing was
added and there was no independent imputation thereof of a crime, vice or defect
other than the very accusation in their letter-complaint filed by them against the
private complainant.
The arguments of the prosecution from pages 1 to 7 in their opposition
were lifted verbatim from the said Emil P. Jurado case. It would naturally follow
that the same should not be considered in the determination of the herein Motion
to Quash since as already asserted, there is no comparison at all of that case to
this instant case. The facts and circumstances of the said case are not attendant
in this case at bar and the ruling in that said case is entirely inapplicable hereof.
II.
The prosecution also cited in their opposition the case of Sazon vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 120715, March 29, 1999. It is humbly submitted that the
said case is likewise extraneous and not germane to the issues in the case at
bar.
In the case of Sazon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120715, March 29,
1999 cited by the prosecution, the accused Fernando Sazon was held guilty of
the crime of libel because the defamatory character of the words used by him
were shown by the very recitals thereof in the questioned article. He used the
following
words
and
phrases
in
describing
the
private
complainant:
Court of Appeals, and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 47971, October 31,
1990; Nanerico D. Santos vs. The Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45031, October
21, 1991; U.S. vs. Santos, 33 Phil. 533; People vs. Velasco, C.A., 40 O.G. 3694;
Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999; People v.
Andres, 107 Phil. 1046 (1960); People v. Alvarez, L-19072, August 14, 1965, 14
SCRA 901; People vs. Aquino, L-23908, October 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 555;
Esteban C. Manuel vs. The Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano as Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Br. XVIII, Q.C., Antonio A. Baranda, Edsel Labayen and
Rolando Gatmaitan, G.R. No. L-46079, April 17, 1989; and Manuel Elizalde vs.
Hon. Mario J. Gutierrez, G.R. No. L-33615, April 22, 1977.
III.
The prosecution maintains that the caption Zubiri pockets P33-million?
conveyed defamatory imputations and therefore malice is presumed. This
argument is flimsy and draws a distinction where there clearly is none.
It can very well be appreciated that the said caption is a summary of the
contents of the news item. What was filed against the herein private complainant
is exactly to that effect. Thus, the headline and the sub-headline are borne out
by the facts recited in the context of the news item. The same may fairly be said
to contain a correct description of the news story. It did not go beyond the actual
report of the news item, hence is likewise privileged in nature and covered under
the mantle of the Constitutional protection. In Norberto Quisumbing vs. Eugenio
Lopez 96 Phil. 510, the Supreme Court, in rejecting the theory of the prosecution
that the headline of the news item is libelous per se declared that the headline of
a newspaper story or publication claimed to be libelous must be read and
construed in connection with the language that follows.
x x x Press reporters
and editors should not, consistently with good faith and reasonable care, be held
to account, to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfection in the
1
Underscoring provided.
choice of words. Also in the landmark cases of Jimenez vs. Reyes, 27 Phil., 52;
U. S. vs. O'Connel, 37 Phil. 767; U. S. vs. Sotto, 38 Phil., 666, it was consistently
decreed that the published matter alleged to be libelous must be construed as a
whole. The test of libelous meanings is not the analysis of a sentence into
component phrases with the meticulous care of the grammarian or stylist, but the
import conveyed of the entirety of the language to the ordinary reader.
In other
words, the article must be construed in its entirety including the headline, as they
may enlarge, explain, or restrict or be enlarged, explained or strengthened or
restricted by the context. Whether or not it is libelous depends upon the scope,
spirit and motive of the publication taken in its entirety.
the letter-complaint was sent, is vested with the power of supervision over the
private complainant and the authority to investigate the charges made against
the latter.
IV.
The prosecution, in its futile attempt to emasculate the legitimate
arguments of the accused in their motion to quash, would now say that there was
no complaint filed by the three accused against the herein private complainant
before the Ombudsman-Mindanao. It attached to their opposition alleged
Certifications dated April 5, 2004 and April 16, 2004 to the effect that no pending
criminal or administrative cases are filed against him. However, it cannot be
denied that there was in fact a case filed against him before the OmbudsmanMindanao for violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and
R.A. 7160 (Implementing Rules/Regulations/Local Government Code). The same
was filed on September 16, 2003, at 2:40 PM and received by one Sarena, RA,
as shown by the stamp on the face of the complaint; copy thereof is hereto
attached as Annex 1, which said complaint is the basis of the article complained
of. The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao indorsed the said letter-complaint to
the Commission on Audit. In fact, on July 26, 2004, the herein accused received
an official communication by the Office of the Ombudsman addressed to Atty.
Celso Vocal, Regional Cluster Director, Commission on Audit, Regional Office
No. X, Cagayan de Oro City in which the Deputy Ombudsman asked for a copy
of the audit report. The number and title of the case was mentioned in the said
letter, namely, CPL-M-03-0864, Felicisimo Permalan, et al., vs. Concerned
Provincial Officials of Malaybalay City; copy of the said letter is hereto attached
as Annex 2.
Lope O. Daez vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 47971,
October 31, 1990, underscoring provided.
V.
Is the publication of a complaint filed in court or any quasi-judicial agency
before any action is taken thereon, privileged as a report of a judicial or official
proceeding? The Supreme Court took the affirmative stance in its decision in
Nanerico D. Santos vs. The Court of Appeals
10
11
A matter
thing, with any speech or acts performed by officers in the exercise of their
functions are not actionable.. If the comment is an expression of an opinion,
based upon proven facts, then it is no matter that the opinion happens to be
mistaken so long as it might be reasonably inferred from the facts.. Comment
may be fair, although wrong.
12
are false, mere error, inaccuracy or even falsity alone does not prove actual
malice. Errors or misstatements are inevitable in any scheme of truly free
expression and debate. 13
11
VI.
Lastly, the prosecution posits that good intentions or justifiable motive are
matters of defense which are evidentiary in nature which does not in anyway
alter the findings of the existence of probable cause for libel, citing the cases of
and Lu Chu vs. Lu Tiong Gui, 76 Phil. 669 and People vs. Wenceslao Pascual,
102 Phil. 503.
These two cases were decided way back on May 11, 1946 and November
29, 1957, respectively. Contemporary doctrines have then evolved from more
recent cases. In the case of Esteban C. Manuel vs. The Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano
as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Br. XVIII, Q.C., Antonio A.
Baranda, Edsel Labayen and Rolando Gatmaitan, G.R. No. L-46079. April 17,
1989, the Supreme Court in quashing the Information of Libel ruled, thus:
We are not unmindful of the contention that
the information should not be dismissed outright
because the prosecution must first be given a chance
to introduce evidence to overcome the presumption.
This is indeed the normal procedure. However, where
it appears from the allegations in the information itself
that the accused acted in good faith and for justifiable
ends in making the allegedly libelous imputations, and
in pertinent pleadings, there is no need to prolong the
proceedings to the prejudice of the defendant. The
Court can and should dismiss the charge without
further ado. 14
x x x x
One wonders why the respondent judge did
not immediately grant the petitioner's motion to quash
the information on the obvious and valid ground that
the facts charged did not constitute an offense. This
decisive act could have avoided the needless
molestation of one more citizen and cleared the
clogged dockets of this Court of still another of the
persecutions big and small so rampant during those
days of martial law. More importantly, it would have
affirmed once again the freedom of expression
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to which every one
was entitled even under the 1973 Constitution.
x x x x
14
Underscoring provided.
15
quashed the information for libel because the facts charged do not constitute an
offense by reason of press freedom. In this case, it was argued by the
prosecution "that the trial court erred in dismissing the case on a mere motion to
quash, contending that the trial judge's conclusion on the face of the information
that defendant-appellee was prompted only by good motives assumes a fact to
be proved, and that the alleged privileged nature of defendant-appellee's
publication is a matter of defense and is not a proper ground for dismissal of the
complaint for libel . . . ."16 That contention was rejected in this wise: "While there
is some point to this contention, yet when in the information itself it appears, as it
does in the present case, that the communication alleged to be libelous is
contained in an appropriate pleading in a court proceeding, the privilege
becomes at once apparent and defendant need not wait until the trial and
produce evidence before he can raise the question of privilege. It would become
evident that the facts thus alleged in the information would not constitute an
offense of libel."
17
People v. Alvarez,18 where it was pointed out: "As heretofore stated, this Court
has adopted a liberal attitude in favor of the writer in matter of the relevancy of
allegedly libelous statements in judicial pleadings. In People v. Aquino,
15
19
20
By: