G.R No.

L-26877 December 26, 1969

GODOFREDO ORFANEL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent

Facts:

On May 5, 1961, defendant wrote to the Director of Printing accusing the

complainant Jesus Ballesteros of racketeering in his workplace along with
two unnamed employees of the complainant. In Exhibit A also, he claims
that Ballesteros has fat bank account and has bought properties from the
funds he got by printing materials and selling it to a certain Holgado and
some students.

Upon investigation, Ballesteros was completely exonerated and that

prompted for a libel case against the defendant and sentencing to pay Php
2,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Orfanel filed a
motion for certiorari claiming that the court erred in not holding that
exhibit A is a “privileged communication which would exempt him from
criminal responsibility”,in basing the conviction on a presumption of malice,
in failing to hold that his letter only contained opinion or belief, in holding
that the failure of the defense to present Holgado as a witness “should be
taken against him”; and lastly in holding that there had been publication of
the letter exhibit A.

Issue:

Whether or not Orfanel committed libel by sending letter of imputation

against Ballesteros?

Held:

Yes, Orfanel is liable and rightfully charged with libel as he was not able to
present his mentioned evidences; - Holgado and a copy of the wedding
invitation he insisted was printed by the complainant. His failure not to
introduce said testimony, but also, to explain why he did not do so,
necessarily weakened his defense. In claiming that exhibit a is a privileged
letter, he was wrong as those which contain defamatory impuatations,
would not be actionable unless mad with malice or bad faith. The
communication must be made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social
duty. Defendant had no such legal, moral or social duty to convey his
opinion of belief about complainant’s moral fiber, to the Director of Printing
or the Secretary of Services. It was later found out that Orfanel sent the
letter as revenge to the complainant because the complainant’s mother filed
a case against Orfanel’s wife over a parcel of land dispute which places the
defendant in acting with malice.