Mercado Vs Cfi Rule 117
Mercado Vs Cfi Rule 117
3. The Court ruled in favor of respondents. In one case, the Court made it clear that
malice can be shown. It "simply puts the burden of doing so on the prosecution." The ponencia
distinguished the Bustos decision, thus: "That case is not here applicable, because the acquittal of
the accused therein on the ground that the defamatory imputation was qualifiedly privileged was
adjudged only after trial, wherein the prosecution tried to establish, although unsuccessfully, the
element of malice." Further, the opinion stated: " It need only be added that in the instant case the
information alleges that the defendants, appellees here, wrote and sent the subject letter to the
President 'with malicious intent and evil motive of attacking, injuring and impeaching the
character, honesty, integrity, virtue and reputation of one Jose J. Monteclaro ... and with
malicious intent of exposing (him) to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, discredit and dishonor,
without any justifiable motive.' Under the foregoing allegation, the prosecution is entitled to go
to trial and present the necessary evidence to prove malice; and the denial, to it of the
opportunity to do so, upon the defendants' motion to quash, constitutes reversible error."