108 MEDELARNALDO B.

BELEN vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 211120 | February 13, 2017 | PONENTE: PERALTA, J.

FACTS: Petitioner, a former Judge, filed a criminal complaint for estafa against his
uncle, Nezer Belen, Sr. before the Office of the City Prosecutor assigned to then
Assistant City Prosecutor Ma. Victoria Sufiega-Lagman.
ACP Sufiega-Lagman dismissed petitioner's complaint. Petitioner filed an Omnibus
Motion (for Reconsideration & Disqualify), which later became the subject of this
libel case.
Petitioner furnished copies of the Omnibus Motion to Nezer and the Office of the
Secretary of Justice, Manila. ACP Suñ ega-Lagman learned of the existence of the
Omnibus Motion from the son of Nezer, the respondent in the estafa complaint.
ACP Suñ ega-Lagman filed against petitioner a criminal complaint for libel. State
Prosecutor Baculi found probable cause against petitioner.
RTC found petitioner guilty of libel. CA affirmed

ISSUE: WON the alleged defamatory statements in his Omnibus Motion are covered
by the doctrine of absolutely privileged communication

Ruling: NO, the statements in petitioner's Omnibus Motion filed for the dismissal of
his estafa complaint during preliminary investigation, fall short of the test of
relevancy.
The absolute privilege remains regardless of the defamatory tenor and the presence
of malice, if the same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in and or
subject of the inquiry.