You are on page 1of 8

a.The publisher, exhibitor, cause of the publication or exhibitb.

Author or editor of
the book or pamphletc.Editor or business manager of a newspaper or serial
publicationd.owner of the printing plant which consents to the publication of
thelibelous article and all other person who in any way participate or have
connection with its publishing.Who conducts the preliminary investigation?The city
or provincial fiscal or the city court where the actions are institutedshall conduct
such investigation and not a judge who is neither a judge of themunicipal, city or
capital court where the action is instituted.Venue of criminal and civil proceedingsBoth can be filed simultaneously or separately filed in the CFI of theprovince or
city:a. where the libelous articles are printed and first publishedb.Or where any of
the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense.c.A public officer must sue in the court of the locality where he holdsoffice*
this was meant to prevent Out of town libel suits which require theoffender
undergo the hardship of attending a case out of town.Exclusive Jurisdiction of the
CourtThe court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filedshall
acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts
Art 361 Proof of Truth
When is proof of truth admissible1.When the act or omission imputed constitutes a
crime regardless of whether the offended party is a private individual or a public
officer 2.When the offended party is a government employee even if the act
or omission is imputed does not constitute a crime but is related to thedischarge of
his official dutiesWhen proof of truth leads to an acquittal of the defendant
(DEFENSES)1.When the matter charged is proven to be true2.It was published with
good motives3.It was published for justifiable ends.
Art. 362 Libelous Remarks
What does this article cover?-Libelous remarks or comments connected with
privileged mattersunder Art. 354, if made with malice, will not exempt the author,
editor,managing editor or the newspaper thereof
CHAPTER 2 INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONSArt. 363 Incriminating innocent person
Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directlyincriminate or
impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime shallbe punished by
arresto mayor.Elementsa.that the offender performs an actb.that by such act he
directly incriminates or imputes to aninnocent person the commission of a
crimec.said act does not constitute perjuryExample- Planting evidence or the like
which do not constitute false prosecutionsbut tend directly to cause false
prosecutions CasesPeople vs. Alagao, 16 SCRA 879, April 30, 1966

The said accused, beingmembers of the Mnila Polic Department, were charged with
the complexcrime of incriminatory machinations through unlawful arrest. The
allegedlyunlawfully arrested complainant, Marcial Apolonio y Santos, and planted
onhis person a marked P1.00 bill in order to impute to him the crime of bribery.The
accused filed a motion to quash said information on the grounds that saidcrime
does not exist.
1. A perusal of the charge shows that it is a complex crime in the sense thatthe
unlawful arrest was used as a means to commit the crime of
incriminatorymachinations. The accused had to detain the complainant through
theunlawful arrest first before they proceeded with the planting.2. Sol-Gen points
out that the unlawful arrest was a necessary act in order for the planting of the
evidence to have been committed. The trial courts findingthat the planting
happened long after the unlawful arrest was not proven byevidence and even
assuming that it was, it still doesnt disprove the necessityof the unlawful arrest in
committing the evidence planting
Art. 364 Intriguing Against Honor
How committed?

It is committed by making any intrigue which for its principal purpose is toblemish
the honor or reputation of another person Intriguing against Honor distinguished
from Incriminatory Machinations- Incriminatory machinations impute the
commission of a crime to an innocentperson whereas intriguing against honor only
blemishes the honor of thepersonIntriguing against Honor distinguished from
Defamation-Defamation is committed in a public and malicious manner
whereasintriguing against honor consists of some tricky and secret plotGossiping is not intriguing against honor since it is done byavailing of directly
spoken words
-People vs. Pelayo requirement for Intriguing against honor:a.source of the
derogatory information
cannot be determined
b.the accused passes it on
without subscribing to the truth
of the remarks

RA 4200 The Anti-Wiretapping Law

How committed?a.tap any wire or cable without authorization from all parties to
theprivate communicationb.using a device or arrangement to secretly overhear,
intercept andrecord such communicationc.using a device called a Dictaphone or
dictagraph or walkie-talkie or tape recorder d.knowingly possess any form of record
of such private communicationsecured by any manner prohibited by this
lawe.replay, communicate or furnish transcripts of said recordingsf.willfully or
knowingly aid, permit or cause to be done any of theprohibited actsDisclaimer on
presentation as evidenceProvided that the use of such record or any copies thereof
as evidence in anycivil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in
section 3 hereof,shall not be covered by this prohibition Sec. 3 commission of
lawful authority of said prohibited acts- said acts shall not be punishable or unlawful
if committed by a peace officer upon authorization by a written order of a court to
execute such acts in casesinvolvinga.treason, rebellion, sedition and any conspiracy
thereof b.espionagec.provoking to war and disloyaltyd.piracy and mutiny in the high
sease.kidnappingRequirements of written order a.reasonable grounds that the
crimes have been committed or about to be committed (provided that in crimes of
rebellion,sedition and treason, prior proof that said acts have beencommitted are
adduced)b.the evidence procured form the wiretapping are essential to
theconviction of the personsc.there are no other means of readily procuring such
evidenceContent of Written Order a.the identity of the person to be tapped and the
teleraph line or telephone number involved and its locationb.the identity of the
peace officer who overhearsc.the offenses committed or are sought to be
preventedd.the period of authorization (which shall not exceed 60 days fromdate of
issuance* all recordings made shall, within 48 hours of the expiration of theperiod
set, be deposited with the court in a sealed envelope or package. Said contents will
not be used as evidence unless orderedby the courtAdmissibility of Evidence
procured through the prohibited Actsthey shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial, quasi- judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
CasesGanaa vs IAC, 145 SCRA 112, October 16, 1986
Complainant Atty. Pintor called up Lenoanrdo Laconico to discuss the withdrawal of
the charge of direct assault against latter. Laconico requested the appellant, Atty.
Ganaan,to listen in on the conversation,
by using the phone extension,
betweenPintor and Laconico wherein Pintor offered to drop the charges if
Laconicopaid him P8,000. Gaanan executed an affidavit attesting that he heard

thecomplainant extort/ commit robbery against Laconico. Complainant then filesa

complaint against Ganaan for violating the Anti-wiretapping law.
A telephone extension is not considered as subsumedunder the phrase any other
device or arrangement
since a telephone

extension is not deliberately installed for the purpose of overhearing,intercepting or

recording spoken words.1. Statutory construction will nor permit telephone
extensions to be includedin the enumeration of prohibited devices in the law2. The

records of the congressional hearings show that they were concernedmore with
penalizing the act of recording rather than just listening to phoneconversations3.
The act of mere listening can only be prosecuted if committed strictly withthe use of
the enumerated devices or others of a similar nature4. Crossed-lines phenomenon
will prevent inadvertent listeners to reportcrimes for fear of being prosecuted under
RA 4200 if we sustain suchprosecution of the accused at hand
Ramirez vs. Ca, 248 SCRA 590, Septembet 28, 1995
In a civil case for damages, the accused presented a verbatim transcript of the
event whereinthe private respondent vexed, insulted, humiliated her in a hostile
and furiousmood. The conversation contained such statements as wala kang
utak,Putang ina mo, Bastos ka. The private respondent, Ester Garcia, then
fileda criminal case saying that the accused violated RA 4200 since she
allegedlytaped their conversation.
1. The provision also prohibits the unauthorized taping of a conversationcommitted
by one of the parties to the conversation. The accused is notexempt merely by
being a party to the conversation2. The provision makes no distinction between
private communication andprivate conversation. Both terms were used
interchangeably in thecongressional debates.3. To secretly record would be
unsporting and is not aligned with the notion of fair play

Similar to Crim 2 Reviewer- Slander Part 2