Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Magno vs. People, G.R. No. 133896, Jan. 27, 2006

    Uploaded by

    Lorenz Baguio
    425 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between neighbors, Dolores Magno and Cerelito Alejandro, over access to a passageway on Magno's property. Magno had previously written defamatory statements about Alejandro on her property. She later sent an unsigned letter containing additional defamatory statements to Alejandro's wife. The issue is whether sending the letter constitutes publication for the purposes of libel. The court ruled that writing to a third party, in this case Alejandro's wife, is sufficient publication under the law. Sending the unsigned letter repeating the previous defamatory claims established all the elements of libel against Magno.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    31. Magno vs. People, G.R. No. 133896, Jan. 27, 2006

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a dispute between neighbors, Dolores Magno and Cerelito Alejandro, over access to a passageway on Magno's property. Magno had previously written defamatory statements about Alejandro on her property. She later sent an unsigned letter containing additional defamatory statements to Alejandro's wife. The issue is whether sending the letter constitutes publication for the purposes of libel. The court ruled that writing to a third party, in this case Alejandro's wife, is sufficient publication under the law. Sending the unsigned letter repeating the previous defamatory claims established all the elements of libel against Magno.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    425 views2 pages

    Magno vs. People, G.R. No. 133896, Jan. 27, 2006

    Uploaded by

    Lorenz Baguio
    This case involves a dispute between neighbors, Dolores Magno and Cerelito Alejandro, over access to a passageway on Magno's property. Magno had previously written defamatory statements about Alejandro on her property. She later sent an unsigned letter containing additional defamatory statements to Alejandro's wife. The issue is whether sending the letter constitutes publication for the purposes of libel. The court ruled that writing to a third party, in this case Alejandro's wife, is sufficient publication under the law. Sending the unsigned letter repeating the previous defamatory claims established all the elements of libel against Magno.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Dolores Magno vs.

    People of the Philippines

    (G.r. No. 133896, January 27, 2006)

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Dolores Magno and Cerelito T. Alejandro have been neighbors at Pucay
    Village, Marcos Highway, Baguio City.The Alejandros, however, can access the highway only
    by traversing the Magnos’ property. Thru the years, the Magnos had allowed the Alejandros the
    use of this passage way until Dolores closed the same sometime in 1991, purportedly in
    retaliation to certain unsavory allegations made by Cerelito against the Magnos and because of
    the deteriorating relationship between the two families.Cerelito, while at the upper portion of his
    house, saw Dolores write on the wall at the back of her garage the following words
    "HuagBurahinBawalDumaanDitoang Maniac at MagnanakawngAsokatuladni Cere Lito O.
    Cedring."Feeling that he was the "Cere", "Lito" or "Cedring" being alluded to, Cerelito reported
    the matter to the local police and filed an affidavit-complaint with the Fiscal’s Office.
    Subsequently, or on March 9, 1991, at around 4:00 p.m., Rodelito, Cerelito’s 16-year old
    son, while on his way to buy bread at a nearby store, saw Dolores writing something on her
    garage's extension wall with the use of a paint brush and red paint. In full, the writing reads:
    "HUAG BURAHIN BAWAL DUMAAN ANG SUSPETSOSA BASTOS AT MAKAPAL NA
    MUKHA DITO LALO NA SA MANIAC AT MAGNANAKAW NG ASO KATULAD NI
    CERELITO." After reading what was thus written, Rodelito proceeded with his errand and, upon
    reaching home, related what he saw to his father.Again, feeling that he was the maniac and dog
    thief being referred to, Cerelito lost no time in filing a complaint.

    Dolores sent a letter to Cerelito, receive by the latter’s wife, contained therein is an
    allegedly defamatory statement "IF YOUR HUSBAND CAN'T SHOW ANY PROOF OF HIS
    MAKATING DILA THEN COMPLY & IF YOUR HUSBAND CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS
    SIMPLE ENGLISH DAHIL MANGMANG, DAYUKDOK NGA GALING SA ISANG KAHIG
    ISANG TUKANG PAMILYA AT WALANG PINAG-ARALAN, ILLITERATE, MAL
    EDUCADO KAYA BASTOS EH HUAG NA NIYA KAMING IDAMAY SA KANIYANG
    KATANGAHAN NA ALAM NA TRABAHO E HUMAWAK NG GRASA SA SAUDI. KAYA
    IYONG PAMBABASTOS MO AT PAGDUDUMI NIYA SA PANGALAN NAMIN AT HIGIT
    PA SIYANG MARUMI AT PUTANG INA RIN NIYA. GALING SIYA SA PUKI NG BABOY
    AT HINDI PUKI NG TAO, HUAG IKUMPARA ANG PINANGALINGAN NAMIN. SIYA
    ANG MAGNANAKAW AT MANDARAYA. MALINAW NA IBIDENSIYA IYAN
    KINALALAGYAN NG HAGDAN NINYO, DI BA LAMPAS KAYO SA LOTE NINYO.
    PINALAKAD NINYO ANG MOJON PARA LUMAKI ANG LOTE NINYO. BAGO KAYO
    MAGSALITA MAMBINTANG NG KAPITBAHAY NINYO, TIGNAN NINYO MUNA ANG
    SARILI NINYO. MAS MUKHA PANG MAGNANAKAW ANG ASAWA MO PARA
    MALINAW”

    ISSUE:

    WON the sending of a letter to the wife of the defamed person constitutes publication.

    RULING:

    YES,

    To be liable for libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the following
    elements must be shown to exist: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning
    another; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of
    malice.Writing to a person other than the person defamed is sufficient to constitute publication,
    for the person to whom the letter is addressed is a third person in relation to its writer and the
    person defamed therein.32 Fe, the wife, is, in context, a third person to whom the publication was
    made.

    The Court cannot give credence to Dolores’ allegation that she is not the author of the
    unsigned libelous letter. It cannot be overstressed that she herself handed the unsigned letter to
    Evelyn Arcartado with specific instructions to give the same to Fe Alejandro. Likewise, the
    contents of the letters are basically reiteration/elaborations of Dolores’ previous writing on the
    wall and her letter to the BCP Sub-Station commander.In all, we find all the elements of libel to
    have been sufficiently established.

    You might also like