1982 OFFICIAL GAZETTE Von. 51, No. 4 [No. 10412-R. October 20, 1954] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. FEDERICO M. CHua Hione, defendant and appellant CromnaL Law; Lipen; Person Lisencen Justiriep to Hir Back with ANOTHER LiREL.—Self-defense is man’s inborn right. In a physical assault retaliation becomes unlawful after the attack has ceased, because there would be no further harm to repel. But that is not the case when if, is aimed at a person’s good name. Once the asnersion is cast its sting clings and the one thus defamed may‘avail himself of all the necessary means to shake it off. He may hit back with another libel which, if adequate, will be justified. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Macadaeg, J. The facts are stated in the, opinion of the court. Claro M. Recto, for defendant and appellant. First Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr., and Solicitor Ramon L. Avancejfia, for plaintiff and appellee. MARTINEZ, J.2 The case is one of libel. After trial defendant herein, Federico M. Chua Hiong, was found guilty of the crime and accordingly, was sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of from 8 months and 11 days of arresto mayor to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prisién correccional. He comes now on appeal on the following assignment of errors: “1, The lower court erred in holding that Exhibit B was pub- Yished to answer Soliongeo’s “Seriously Speaking” column and not Cesario Gocheco's article entitled “Doubtful Citizenship” (Ex- hibit 2). “2, The lower court erred in not holding that Cesario Gocheco’s article, Exhibit 2, “Doubtful Citizenship” contains derogatory im- putations against the accused. “3. The lower court erred in not holding that the article, Exhibit B, is qualifiedly privileged. “4, The lower court erred in holding that the truth of the matters contained in the article, Exhibit B, have not been proven and that said article was not published with good motives and for justifiable ends. Appellant assumes full authorship of the alleged libelous publication whose important part, as quoted in the informa- tion, reads thus: “4 * This investigation wa: fa series of other in- vestigations conducted by diff €: 3 of our Government at the instigation of Mr. Gocheco, who appears to be obsessed with a persecution mania in order to besmirch my name and re- putation and harass me and my family. “To my eternal shame and misfortune, Mr. Cesario T. Gocheco is my nephew. As such, he is cognizant of all of the facts of my life for he has known me for the past 25 years. During all these years, he knew that I am a Filipino and had every right t6@o)so. He knew that I am doing business as a Filipino, and exereised the rights and prerogatives of a Filipino citizen, butAPRIL, 1955 OFFICIAL GAZETTE finezoe & 1933 during all those years, he never lifted a finger of protest and did not even whisper a word of malice against me and my family. Why then, this sudden concern over my citizenship? Why, this mad desire to bring harm to me and my family? The reason is not hard to find—personal revenge is the moving passion in this drama of intrigues and persecution to which I and my family have been subjected. “Tt is easy to imagine the gloom, despondency and despair, that must. have seized the Gocheco family when the above decision was handed down as that would divest them of everything that they now have and thus face stark poverty.” * * * * = * * “Still later, the same “Benito Solipco” sent me, by mail, a piece of rope apparently implying that I should hang myself with its counterpart. It is obvious that the name “Benito Solipco” is fic- titious, as it is the most natural thing that my enemies should cowardly hide behind the cloak of anonimity, but, one need not stretch the imagination too far. to be able to guess who must be the “mastermind” behind these threats. 7 + + * “Although defeated and thwarted at every end, my enemies will keep on trying, and from all indications, they have now resorted to the press with their campaign of vilification and persecution. In this campaign, I feel confident that they will fail because I am sure that the public will see through their false propaganda and will not be misled into believing their lies as against the clean slate given me by the different government agencies. But, failing all these, my enemies have one last resort which is that of “killing or liquidating” me through hired assassins. as indi- cated in their threatening letters. I pray that a just and merciful God shall not permit this to pass—but if that should be my fate T am not afraid. When, as and if I should meet death by vio- Ience in the hands of my enemies, I have given proper instructions to my kin and loyal friends to the end that the guilty party or parties shall not escape the long arm of the Jaw and make them pay the full penalty exacted by the laws of decent society. It shall not be difficult to ferret out the culprits as the finger of guilt shall point unerringly to them and the handwriting on the wall is clear and unmistakable! For what could be better or more convenient to my enemies than my untimely death, or for that matter, my deportation from this country had they been able to prove their charges filed with the different government agenices? What better or more convenient weapon can my enemies avail of than this systematic and malicious persecution in order to coerce or eajole me into submitting to their demands that I should desist from proceeding with the civil case I have instituted against the Gocheco family which shall ultimately result in re- ducing them to the poverty of the proverbial church-mouse?” With this, the Fiscal maintains that appellant * = meant and intended to convey, as in fact he did mean and convey false and malicious implications and insinuations that said Cesario T. Gocheco instigated investigations in different gov- ernment agencies because of his persgeution mania and in the spirit of revenge; and that the said complainant was the master- mind behind the threatening letter of one ‘Benito Solipco’ sent to the defendant; that all these and other similar acts imputed have been done because of a systematic campaign of persecution1934 OFFICIAL GAZETTE Von. 51, No. 4 and vilification resorted to by said Cesario T. Gocheco, knowing fully well that the same proceeds from a poluted source, which imputations and insinuations are false, untrue and highly libelous and offensive and derogatory to the good name, character and re- putation of the said Cesario T. Gocheco and that the said article was solely written, published, exhibited and circulated by the said accused for no other purpose than to impeach and besmirch and ‘discredit the good name, character and reputation of said Cesario T. Gocheco in order to expose, as in fact he was exposed, to dis- honor, discredit and public hatred, contempt and ridicule.” (p. 5, Appellant’s brief) And accordingly, offended party denied that he had been the investigator of any of the complaints filed with the different branches of the Government against appellant. In this connection, he testified as follows: “Q. Mr. Gocheco, in your last testimony offered here, your at- tention was called by this representation in regard to some para- graphs appearing in Exhibit B-3, issue of the Manila Chronicle of February 21, 1952 which has already been marked as exhibit and which have been underlined in red ink. May I ask you again to examine Exhibit B-3, specially those paragraphs or sentences underlined in red pencil or red ink, and please state to us cate- gorically, after examination, whether it is true, as stated in one of the paragraphs here underlined by you, that you were the instigator of the investigation conducted against the accused herein, and that you appeared to have been obsessed by a per- secution mania. Is that true? Are you the instigator of these investigations against the accused?—A. No, sir. Q. And are you possessed of obsession by persecution mania?—A. No, sir. Courr: Q. Do you know what a persecution mania ist—A. Yes, 51 Mr. Roxas (continuing) Q. Will you explain it to this Honorable Court? one who kas the persecution instinct. @ But have you done that; have you been inspired by that persecution instinet with respect to the accused herein, Mr. Chua Hiong?—A. No, sir. “Q. Also, in the first column of this Exhibit B-8, there is men- tioned here to the effect that as nephew of the accused, you know very well since the beginning that he was and he is a Filipino citizen, but in spite of that, you had, according to this, and T quote: “this mad desire to bring harm to me and to my family.” Do you have that mad desire?—A. No, sir. (t. s. n. pp. 66-68— transcript of June 27, 1952). A, Well, he is But from a careful scrutiny of the record we are irre- sistibly led to believe that the alleged scurrilous imputations are not merely an outgrowth of a capricious imagination. There is, in his own way of thinking, every conceivable motive for aggrieved party to dislike and vex appellant. Cesareo Gocheco and his family were defeated in civil case No. 5436 of the Court of First Instance of Manila where, if affirmed by the Supreme Court, they would lose two-thirds of the important inheritance left by one Paulino P. Gocheco (Exhbiit 1). Thus, the tension of feedings | between them and Chua Hiong, the one behind the winningAPRIL, 1955 OFFICIAL GAZETTE parties, must have reached the breaking point. For we see now aggrieved party writing on August 10, 1951, to the Chief Finance Agent of the Department of Finance charging appellant with evasion of taxes and using a fake Filipino citizenship (Exhibit 8). Again on October 1, 1951, he wrote a letter to the then Vice-President, Fer- nando Lopez, accusing appellant of supposed illegal trans- actions with the Philippine Government (Exhibit 7). ‘And there was one Benito Solipco who, on July 15, 1951, wrote appellant a letter, as follows: “My dearest friend: “1 have the honor to inform you that a» information received by me from a director of the Go: Family Association of the Phil- ippines (Liong Tek Tong) informing me yesterday that due to the heirs of the late Paulino P.,Gocheco appealing to their asso- ciation, seeking for help of their’lost case against their 2 aunties name Go Chi Gun and-Go Away (sisters of their late father Paulino P. Gocheco), that’s why the other day their association held a general membership meeting at their headquarters in Salazar street, Manila, having resolved the resolution of the meeting; “Phat during the lifetime of Paulino P. Gocheco, he had been several times as president of the Go Familly Association (Liong Tek Tong) in which he had contributed a lot of his services to their association, for this reason the members of all the Go's Fa- mily Association have agreed and signed their conformity to con- tribute what ever expenses we occured to prejudice you, as Go Away is married to you. Pkey know that if not of you, the case will never discovered, specially they knew that you were the ‘one who advanced all the expenses of their case, as your sister- in-law is poor, furthermore they know also that in settling this case, any offering amount will be acceptable by your wife and your sister-in-law, so long you will recommend them to accept. So my dear friend Mr. Federico, don't take easy about this advice of mine. May be within few days, they will send some delegates to settle this case or they will not send, as still they are studying with their high legal advisers, as to whether they will appeal the case to the Supreme Court. But supposing they will send some delegates to settle the case, please tell your wife and your sister- in-law to accept whatever amount they will offer to them, to the con- trary, he told me that they will make every vengeance against you, such as paying some persons to kill you, or reporting you to every Philippine Government Authority that you are a communist and other many kinds of vengeance they can do against you. Please believe me, my dear friend Mr. Federico, and be careful always as all members of the Go's Family are now your enemies. No doubt, at any cost, they will make every vengeance against you.” Your best friend. (Sgd.) Bento Soxtpco” (Exurpir H) The same Solipco sent him an envelope enclosing a piece of rope and a note conceived thus: “This serves as for your personal use.” (Exhibit 14). Solipco was undoutedly, if not the aggrieved party himself, acting under the latter's inducement. Appellant received threats by telephone and 19351936 OFFICIAL GAZETTE Vou. 51, No. 4 was even denounced as a communist through anonymous letters. ~ The only question to decide is, therefore, whether or not appellant was justified when he gave the alleged ¢ libelous matter for publication. Self-defense is man’s inborn right. In a physical as- sault retaliation becomes unlawful after the attack has ceased, because there would be no further harm to repel. But that is not the case when it is aimed at a person’s good name. Once the aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one thus defamed may avail himself of all neces- sary means to shake it off. He may hit back with another libel which, if adequate, will be justified. Granting that the publication in question is libelous, the issue should be thus resolved, as the Solicitor General proposes: Is it “unnecessarily” libelous? It was intended no doubt to counteract the impression left in the mind of the public by the articles entitled “Doubtful Citizen- ship” which the aggrieved party caused to be published in the Manila Chronicle on February 11, 1952, which reads as, follows: : . “1919 Azcarraga, Manila February 8, 1952 “Tn Mr. Soliongco’s column this morning appeared a letter from the Honorable Commissioner of Immigration stating exidences sup- porting the alleged Filipino citizenship of Mr. Federico M. Chua Ttiong. While it may be true that there is finality of decision, this theory does not hold where the decision is based on questionable proofs as in this case. Under such circumstances, the basis being nonexistent, the decision may be attacked or revoked at any time. You the benefit of your readers, who, after reading the pros in this case, may now be wondering what the cons are, I shall enumerate hereunder a few of the evidences presented in the instant case: “1, Mr. Federico M Chua Hiong and his family, as shown hy the Master List of alien registered in 1941 with the Bureat cf Immigration, were registered under registration Nos. 199-461 to 199466. 2, The last paragraph of the certified docket entry of the Pe- tition for Naturalization filed by Mx. Federico M. Chua Hiong in the Court of First Instance of Manila in 1940, states, quote: “September 15, 1941—Se devolvio de la causa por Ja Corte Sup- rema sobreseyendo la peticion de ciudadania del solicitante.” ‘3. The proceedings of the Board of Special Inquiry at the pout of Manila, under Chinese Board Report No. 141, show that Mr. Chua Hiong was admitted into this country as legi i mate minor son of Chua Pe on September 23, 1918. 4. A certified Chinese Marriage Certificate secured from the local Civil Registrar shows that his marriage was performed by the Chinese Consul at the Chinese YMCA in 1926. 5. Affidavits sworn to by residents of Aparri, Cagayan, the place where the alleged mother lives, and submitted by the Chief of Police at the instance of the investigator in this case, show that the alleged mother has never left Aparri, much less the Philippines, and therefore could not give birth to Mr. Chua Hiong who was born in China.APRIL, 1955 OFFICIAL GAZETTE 6. In the findings of the investigator, he wrote: “After a close study of the testimonies of the four witnesses presented by the petitioner (Mr. Chua Hiong) there seems to be doubt really as to the truth of the claim of the petitioner that his mother is Tita Umandap, a Filipino woman”. On page 11 of the same findings, he said: “When the undersigned went to Aparri to investigate Diosdado Umandap and Tita Umandap at the be- hest of the petitioner, he made it a point to inquire from gov- ernment officials and prominent old people in the community about their knowledge of the parentage of the petitioner and they could not seem to agree that Tita Umandap is the mother of Federico M. Chua Hiong although all agreed that his father is Chua Pe, now deceased.” In fairness to your readers, I am requesting you to publish this letter. Respectfully yours, Cesario T. GocHECO” (EXHIBIT 2) Appellant is living as a Filipino, his livelihood depend- ing mainly upon enterprises only Filipinos can engage in. It is perfectly conceivable that-ahy attempt to assail his Filipino citizenship should meet the keenest defense from him. And that is what he had done when he gave the article for publication in the “Seriously Speaking” column of the Manila Chronicle, a daily. of extensive cir- culation in the Philippines, for the purpose of disabusing the minds of those who read “Doubtful Citizenship”. Gocheco would make us believe that the title of his letter, “Doubtful Citizenship”, is the editor's own com- position. It is immaterial for that caption can easily be read from the context of the letter. (To flout in public the genuineness of one’s citizenship is slanderous, nobody would dare deny, the more so in, the case of herein appel- lant for very obvious reasons. |A perusal of aggrieved party’s “Doubtful Citizenship” shows that appellant is por- trayed as a Filipino whose citizenship was acquired through questionable means. The letter seems to be a report of proceedings regarding an investigation conducted on the regularity of appellant’s citizenship. But, as contended by appellant, it reflects only the side which is disfavor- able to him and, therefore, cannot be justified under the guise of civic spiritedness. That the purpose of ag- grieved party in publishing his letter referred to was to malign appellant can hardly be concealed. The latter is his uncle by affinity and, very conceivably, they were in the best of terms before a civil litigation arose between them, which marked on the part +? aggrived party the start of denunciations against appellant before different branches of the government. Failing to secure his end, aggrieved party décided to air his supposed grievances in the press, as he did in fact, publishing the letter men- tioned above at which appellant retaliated with the alleged- ' 19371938 OFFICIAL GAZETTE Vou. 51, No. 4 ly libelous article. ‘That appellant called aggrieved party in that article his persecutor is only too true. Appellant further said that he was ashamed being aggrieved party’s close kin and he rightly said so for, indeed, we can hardly understand that aggrieved party could wish him all ima- ginable evils, just because they happened to be opposing each other in a court controversy. Appellant also said that aggrieved party would go to the poor house if he lost the civil case. That may be libelous, but is not necessarily so, for appellant is entitled to show aggrieved party’s motive behind the publication “Doubtful Citizen- ship” to dispel the bad impression about him of those who had read it. That aggrieved party was alluded to as the “nigger in the wood-pile”; may we ask, has not the aggrieved party even denied he had anything to do with the charges filed against Chua Hiong before the dif- ferent branches of the Government? : For all the foregoing, we find that the libel in question is justified and appellant is, therefore, acquitted with costs de oficio. Gutierrez David and Hernandez, JJ., concur. Appellant acquitted with costs de-oficio. [No. 10425-R. October 22, 1954] EVARISTA OCSAVES, plaintiff and appellant, vs. Laonc Nasa Inc., defendant and appellee PLEADING AND PRACTICE; APPEAL; PERFECTION OF APPEAL; MERE Fmine or Notice or Appeat Doss Not SUSPEND RUNNING or Prriop WirHin WHIcH 10 PERFECT APrsaL; Cass aT Bar—There is nothing in the Rules of Court nor in our jurisprudence that supports the theory that the mere filing of a notice of appeal suspends the running of the period within which to perfect an appeal. It is true that the trial court has power and discretion to extend the period for filing the record on appeal in the interest of justice, if it appears that the appellant had no sufficient time to prepare and file it within the period limited by the law, either because the remaining period is very short, or the record on appeal is voluminous, or because of some other justifiable reason, provided the motion for extension is filed before the expiration ‘of the period fixed by law. (Moya vs. Barton, 76 Phil, 831.) There is nothing in the record of the instant case to show that appellant had filed a motion for extension of time within which to file her record on appeal based on the fore- going grounds. Held: The period for perfecting the appeal in this case was neither suspended nor extended. APPEAL from a judgment, of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Amparo, J. ~~ The facts are stated in the opinion ‘of the court. Jose Q. Calingo for plaintiff and appellant. Adolfo Garcia for defendant and apipellee. | {