Libel

1. Belen vs. People – G.R. No. 211120, 13 February 2017

Doctrine: Publication in libel means making the defamatory matter, after it has been written,
known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written.

FACTS
Petitioner filed a criminal complaint for estafa against his uncle in the office of the city
prosecutor. His complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration & Disqualify Assistant Prosecutor Lagman, the contents of which is now the
libel case.
The omnibus motion’s relevant portions contained allegations that the Fiscal was not
impartial, and if she was not impartial , she was stupid and rendered a moronic resolution
to dismiss the complaint…. Intellectually infirm or stupidly blind… the slip of her skirt
shows a corrupted an convoluted frame of mind… partiality and stupidity etc… nail in
the coffin for the idiocy and imbecility of the investigating fiscal… she should resign
from prosecutorial arm of the government and be a defense counsel. Then her infirm
intellectual prowess and stupid assumptions be exposed in trial on the merits under
which complaint is afforded the due process …

The trial court held that the contents of the Omnibus Motion are far detached from the
controversy in the estafa case, thereby losing its character as absolutely privileged
communication.
CA affirmed trial court’s decision and pointed out that the defamatory matter was made
known to third persons because prosecution witnesses Flores nad Enseo who are the staff in
the OCP were able to read the Motion as well as the defendant in the estafa complaint. CA
upheld that it was covered by privileged communications because the statements were
unnecessary or irrelevant in determining whether or not the dismissal was proper and were
defamatory remarks on the personality, reputation and mental fitness of Lagman.

Petitioner claims that the element of publication was missing since it was served in an
enclosed envelop, he did not intend to expose it to third persons but complied with the law on
how service and filing of pleadings should be done.

ISSUE
WoN the element of publication was present – YES

HELD
Publication in libel means making the defamatory matter, after it has been written,
known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written. defamatory letter
contained in a closed envelope addressed to another constitutes sufficient publication if the
offender parted with its possession in such a way that it can be read by person other than the
offended party.

Despite the fact that the motion was contained in sealed envelopes, it is not unreasonable to
expect that persons other than the one defamed would be able to read the defamatory
statements in it, precisely because they were filed with the OCP of San Pablo City and copy
furnished to Nezer, the respondent in the estafa complaint, and the Office of the Secretary of
Justice in Manila. Then being a lawyer, petitioner is well aware that such motion is not a
mere private communication, but forms part of public record when filed with the government
office. Inasmuch as one is disputably presumed to intend the natural and
probable consequence of his act, petitioner cannot brush aside the logical outcome of the
filing and service of his Omnibus Motion.

Obscenity and indecency

2. Madrilejos v. Gatdula – G.R. No. 184389, September 24, 2019
Doctrine:
Obscenity is unprotected speech, therefore not covered by the overbreadth doctrine

FACTS
12 Pastors and preachers from various churches filed a complaint against officers and
publishers of 7 men’s magazines (FHM), and tabloids for materials that were clearly
scandalous, obscene and pornographic within the meaning and in violation of the RPC and
ordinance 7780 of City of Manila.

Instead of filing their respective counter-affidavits, petitioners filed an urgent motion for bill
of particulars, for failure of complaint to apprise them of specific acts they allegedly commit
to enable them to prepare their counter-affidavits.

Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Ordinance 7780 on grounds of overbreadth, as it

defines the terms “obscene” and “pornography” in such a way that a very broad range of
speech and expression are placed beyond the protection of the constitution thus violating the
constitutional guarantee to free speech and expression.

ISSUE
WoN ordinance is unconstitutional for violating free speech – NO

HELD
Overbreadth doctrine finds special ad limited application only to free speech cases. The
present petition does not involve a free speech, it stemmed rather from an obscenity
prosecution. Obscenity is not protected speech.

Ordinance No. 7780 is a local legislation which criminalizes obscenity. Obscenity is

unprotected speech. This rule is doctrinal both here
and in the US.

Non-establishment of religion

3. Re: Letter of Tony Alenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice
Building in Quezon City – A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, 07 March 2017

Doctrine:
Allowing religion to flourish is not contrary to the principle of separation of Church and
State
In order to give life to the constitutional right of freedom of religion, the State adopts a
policy of accommodation
The holding of Catholic masses at the basement of the Quezon City (QC) Hall of Justice is
not a case of establishment, but merely accommodation.

FACTS
Valenciano wrote series of letters to then Chief Justice Puno reporting that the basement of
QC Hall of Justice had been converted into a Roman Catholic Chapel, complete with
offertory table, images of catholic religiousness icons, a canopy, and electric organ and a
projector. He alleges that such practice violated the constitutional provision on separation of
Church and State and the appropriation of public money or property for the benefit of a sect
or any religion. Further, that masses showed that it tended to favor Catholic litigants and the
rehearsal of the choir caused great disturbance to other employees…

ISSUE
WoN holding religious rituals in the Halls of Justice amount to a Union of Church and
State – NO

HELD
Our constitution recognizes the heterogeneity and religiosity of our people. The Free
exercise clause supports this.
The basement of the QC Hall of Justice is not appropriated, applied or employed for the sole
purpose of supporting the Roman Catholics. Further, it has not been converted into a Roman
Catholic chapel for the exclusive use of its faithful contrary to the claim of Valenciana. Judge
Maceren reported that the basement is also being used as a public waiting area for most of the
day and a meeting place for different employee organizations. The use of the area for holding
masses is limited to lunch break period from twelve (12) o'clock to one (1) o'clock in the
afternoon. Further, Judge Sagun, Jr. related that masses run for just a little over thirty (30)
minutes. It is, therefore, clear that no undue religious bias is being committed when the
subject basement is allowed to be temporarily used by the Catholics to celebrate mass, as the
same area can be used by other groups of people and for other purposes. Thus, the basement
of the QC Hall of Justice has remained to be a public property devoted for public use because
the holding of Catholic masses therein is a mere incidental consequence of its primary
purpose.

Administrative matters:
In no case shall a particular part of a public building be a permanent place for worship for the
benefit of any and all religious groups. There shall also be no permanent display
of religious icons in all halls of justice in the country. In case of religious rituals, religious
icons and images may be displayed but their presentation is limited only during the
celebration of such activities so as not to offend the sensibilities of members of other
religious denominations or the nonreligious public. After any religious affair, the icons and
images shall be hidden or concealed from public view.

The disposition in this administrative matter shall apply to all halls of justice in the country.
Other churches, religious denominations or sects are entitled to the same rights, privileges,
and practices in every hall of justice

4. Peralta v. Philippine Postal Corporation – G.R. No. 223395, December 4,

2018

Doctrine:
Benevolent Neutrality gives room for accommodation of these religious exercises as
required by the Free Exercise Clause. The INC postal stamps is an exercise of
benevolent neutrality where an exemption is sought from a law of general applicability
that inadvertently burdens religious exercise.

FACTS
PHILPOST, under the express orders of then President Benigno Aquino III,  issued a stamp
commemorating the Iglesia ni Cristo’s Centennial Celebration. The design of the stamp
showed a photo of founder Felix Manalo and central temple of the religious group.

Peralta filed complaint against philpost arguing that respondents' act of releasing the said
stamps was unconstitutional because it was tantamount to sponsorship of a religious activity;
it violated the separation of the Church and the State; and the non-establishment of religion
clause

Peralta claims that respondent in issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the
Thirty-third International Eucharistic Congress is violative of the provisions of section 13,
subsection 3, Article VI, of the Constitution of the Philippines.

ISSUE
WoN INC stamp amounts to violation of the non-establishment clause – NO
WoN there was illegal disbursement of funds under - NO

HELD
The non-establishment of religion clause is not equivalent to indifference to religion
Religious freedom, however, as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound
reverence for religion and is not denial of its influence in human affairs. 
Benevolent neutrality recognizes the religious nature of the Filipino people and the
elevating influence of religion in society; at the same time, it acknowledges that
government must pursue its secular goals. In pursuing these goals, however, government
might adopt laws or actions of general applicability which inadvertently burden religious
exercise. Benevolent neutrality gives room for accommodation of these religious exercises
as required by the Free Exercise Clause. It allows these breaches in the wall of separation
to uphold religious liberty, which after all is the integral purpose of the religion clauses. The
case at bar involves this first type of accommodation where an exemption is sought from a
law of general applicability that inadvertently burdens religious exercise.

we must reconcile the inescapable tension between the objective of preventing

unnecessary intrusion of either the church or the state upon the other, and the reality
that, as the Court has so often noted, total separation of the two is not possible.

Disbursement of funds
 the words "pay" and "employ" should be understood to mean that what is prohibited is the
use of public money or property for the sole purpose of benefiting or supporting any
church. The prohibition contemplates a scenario where the appropriation is primarily
intended for the furtherance of a particular church. Constitution does not inhibit the use of
public property for religious purposes when the religious character of such use is
merely incidental to a temporary use which is available indiscriminately to the public in
general.

Stamp recognizes Felix Manalo’s contribution to Philippine culture as founder of the

religious sect.

Free exercise of religion

5. Valmores v. Achacoso – G.R. No. 217453, July 18, 2017

Doctrine:
Educational institutions are bound to safeguard the religious freedom of their students.
Schools carry the responsibility to restrict its own academic liberties, should they collide with
constitutionally preferred rights.

FACTS
Petitioner is a member of seventh day Adventist church; whose fundamental belief includes
observance of Sabbath day as a sacred day. Valmores joins the faithful in worshipping and
resting on Saturday, the seventh day of the week, and refrains from nonreligious undertakings
from sunset of Friday to sunset of Saturday.

Valmores wrote a letter to MSU school of medicine dean, to exempt him from classes in
observance of his religious practices. Some exams were moved from weekdays to Saturdays,
so Valmores was unable to take his Histo-Pathology laboratory examination. Despite his
request for exemption, no accommodation was given and received a failing grade and
ineligible to retake the exam. several pastors and officers of the Seventh day Adventist
Church sent a letter to respondent Achacoso, requesting for a possible audience with the
members of the MSU school board.

Valmores now seeks relief through a writ of mandamus against MSU, citing CHED
memorandum that institutionalized the framework for operationalizing Section 5, Article III
of the 1987 Constitution vis-à-vis the academic freedom of higher education institutions
(HEIs), pursuant to its statutory power to formulate policies, priorities, and programs on
higher education in both public and private HEIs.

ISSUE
WoN there was infringement of Valmores’ right to freedom of religion - YES

HELD

Valmores’ right to religious freedom is being threatened by respondents’ failure to

accommodate his case. Expulsion of the affected students based on their religious beliefs
would run against the State’s duty to protect and promote the right of all its citizens to
quality education and to make such education accessible to all.

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) imposed a positive duty on all Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) to exempt students, as well as faculty members, from academic
activities in case such activities interfere with their religious obligations.—
Respondents, as faculty members of MSU, fall under the policy-making authority of the
CHED and therefore bound to observe the issuances promulgated by the latter. Respondents’
refusal to excuse petitioner Valmores from Saturday classes and examinations fundamentally
rests only on the fact that there were other Seventh-day Adventists who had successfully
completed their studies at the MSU-College of Medicine. Argument that “sacrifices” of other
students of the common faith justified their refusal to give petitioner Valmores exceptional
treatment. This is non-sequitur. Respondents brush aside petitioner
Valmores’ religious beliefs as if it were subject of compromise; one man’s convictions and
another man’s transgressions are theirs alone to bear. That other fellow believers have chosen
to violate their creed is irrelevant to the case at hand, for in religious discipline, adherence is
always the general rule, and compromise, the exception.

6. Amari v. Villaflor – G.R. No. 224521, February 17, 2020

Doctrine:
Illegal dismissal may not be imputed upon religious sect for removal of a missionary
when his appointment as an instructor was by virtue of his membership in the religious
sect, as part of his duties as a missionary.

FACTS
Villaflor was (1) removed as a missionary of Abiko Baptist Church and (2) cancellation of
his recommendation as a national missionary, and (3) exclusion of his membership in the said
church in Japan. He filed an illegal dismissal complaint with the NLRC
Ratio for removal:
Defiance to orders of transfer to other areas of mission work without reason; discovered that
respondent's refusal to leave San Carlos City was because he had built his personal house on
the land owned by BSAABC without the latter's consent.

After earnest efforts of negotiating with respondent and giving him adequate opportunity to
ventilate his side, the members of the BSAABC unanimously voted to remove him as
missionary and cancel his ABA recommendation. He was informed of the decision in the
November 4, 2011 Letter. In the same letter, BSAABC demanded respondent to vacate the
property as soon as possible, and offered to buy the house erected thereo I at the estimated
cost of building materials

ISSUE
WoN there was illegal dismissal despite the fact that the dispute involves an ecclesiastical
affair - NO
WoN removeal as a missionary was an ecclesiastical affair - YES

HELD
“ecclesiastical affair” is one that concerns doctrine, creed or form of worship of the church
or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws and
regulations.

(3) Exclusion of membership from church and (2) cancellation of recommendation are
ecclesiastical matters which the SC will not touch upon. These are valid exercises of
discretion of the religious sect.
Respondent's appointment as instructor of petitioners' own educational institution was by
virtue of his membership with Abiko Baptist Church. It is one of his duties as a
missionary/minister of the same. Even his alleged exclusion as instructor is beyond the power
of review by the State considering that this is purely an ecclesiastical affair. It is up to the
members of the religious congregation to determine whether their minister still lives up to the
beliefs they stand for, continues to share his knowledge, and remains an exemplar of faith to
the members of their church.

Elements of employer-employee relation not present:

Villaflor was an instructor of MBIS but excused himself from being an instructor due to the
distance of the school from his missionary work in San Carlos City – this raises doubt on the
illegal dismissal.
Payment of Wages not established – Insufficient records show the alleged monthly
compensation of respondent from MBIS or BSAABC. These “love gifts” of around $550
were established to have been coming from donations from Japan and America Baptist
associations missionary.
Dismissal was inherent in religious congregations as they have the power to discipline their
members.
Control was not present.

Liberty of abode and of travel

7. Samahan nang mga Progresibong Kabataan vs. Quezon City - G.R. No. 225442,
08 August 2017

Doctrine:
Manila and Navotas ordinance declared unconstitutional for failing the strict scrutiny
test, failing to provide sufficient provisions for the protection for rights of minors valid
exercise of their right beyond curfew hours
Quezon City Ordinance upheld for having provided sufficiently minors’ rights of
association, free exercise of religion, travel, to peaceably assemble, and of free expression in
the exemptions

FACTS
Petition assails the constitutionality of the curfew ordinances issued by the local
governments of QC, Navotas, and Manila, and prays for a TRO against the city Mayors
to prohibit, refrain, and desist from implementing and enforcing these issuances.

ISSUE
WoN curfew ordinances violated the right to liberty of abode and travel of minors –
PARTLY MERITORIOUS

HELD
Overbreadth not applicable. Court recognizes that minors do possess and enjoy constitutional
rights, but the exercise of these rights is not co-extensive as those of adults. They are
always subject to the authority or custody of another, such as their parent/s and/or guardian/s,
and the State. the State is justified in setting restrictions on the minors' exercise of their travel
rights, provided, they are singled out on reasonable grounds
Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine
petitioners’ invocation of the void for vagueness doctrine is improper, considering that they
do not properly identify any provision in any of the Curfew Ordinances, which, because of its
vague terminology, fails to provide fair warning and notice to the public of what is prohibited
or required so that one may act accordingly while facial challenges of a statute on the ground
of vagueness is permitted only in cases involving alleged transgressions against the right to
free speech, penal laws may nevertheless be invalidated for vagueness “as applied.”

Strict Scrutiny Test not only requires that the challenged law be narrowly tailored in order to
achieve compelling governmental interests, it also requires that the mechanisms it adopts
are the least burdensome or least drastic means to achieve its ends. The right [to travel] may
be “impaired” in consideration of: national security, public safety, or public health.
Government has burden of proving:
(i) is necessary to achieve a compelling State interest,(satisfied) and
(ii) is the least restrictive means to protect such interest or the means chosen is
narrowly tailored to accomplish the interest. (FAILS to Satisfy)

This Court observes that Manila and Navotas ordinances are not narrowly drawn in that their
exceptions are inadequate and therefore, run the risk of overly restricting the minors'
fundamental freedoms. To be fair, both ordinances protect the rights to education, to gainful
employment, and to travel at night from school or work.However, even with those
safeguards, the Navotas Ordinance and, to a greater extent, the Manila Ordinance still do not
account for the reasonable exercise of the minors' rights of association, free exercise of
religion, rights to peaceably assemble, and of free expression, among others.

Quezon city Ordinance declared as constitutional for having protected monors’ rights of
association, free exercise of religion, travel, to peaceably assemble, and of free expression.

- Provisions uphold the right of association by enabling minors to attend both

official and extra-curricular activities not only of their school or church but also of
other legitimate organizations. The rights to peaceably assemble and of free
expression are also covered by these items given that the minors' attendance in
the official activities of civic or religious organizations are allowed during the
curfew hours.

- by exempting attendance at religious masses even during curfew hours.

- allows the minor-participants to move to and from the places where these
activities are held

8. Genuino v. De Lima – G.R. No. 197930, April 17, 2018

Doctrine:
Hold Departure Orders is inherent to the courts. The DOJ does not have powers to issue
such, nor to restrict the right to travel in any way.
There is no law particularly providing for the authority of the secretary of justice to curtail
the exercise of the right travel, in the interest of national security, public safety or public
health.

FACTS
DOJ Circular 42 is being questioned for unconstitutionality for violation of right to travel.
DOJ Secretary in restrained de Lima, during the the pendency of the preliminary
investigation of the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee on the
complaint for electoral sabotage against them.

ISSUE
WoN the DOJ may issue Hold Departure Orders and Watch List Orders to prevent
people under investigation from leaving the country – NO

HELD

Without a law to justify its action, the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 41 is an
unauthorized act of the DOJ of empowering itself under the pretext of dire exigency
or urgent necessity. This action runs afoul the separation of powers between the three
branches of the government and cannot be upheld. Even the Supreme Court, in the
exercise of its power to promulgate rules is limited in that the same shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

When there is a dilemma between an individual claiming the exercise of a constitutional right
vis-à-vis the state’s assertion of authority to restrict the same, any doubt must, at all times, be
resolved in favor of the free exercise of the right, absent any explicit provision of law
to the contrary.

9. Garcia v. Sandiganbayan – G.R. No. 205904-06, October 17, 2018

Doctrine:
The power to issue HDO is an inherent power belonging to the courts, to preserve and to
maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accuse. Law
granting SC of power to issue HDO is not necessary.

FACTS
Petitioner had criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan issued 3 Hold
Departure Orders against petitioner Garcia and co-accused. Petitioner voluntarily surrendered
to Judge Peras and posted bail.

She argues that HDO cannot be issued without final determination of probable cause, and are
violative of her constitutional right to travel which may only be impaired in the interest of
security, public safety or public health as may be provided by law.

ISSUE
WoN Sandiganbayan had authority to issue Hold Departure Order against Garcia -
YES

HELD
Issuance of HDOs and inherent power of the courts.
Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction when it issued the HDOs
against the petitioner. That the petitioner may seek reconsideration of the finding of probable
cause against her by the OMB does not undermine nor suspend the jurisdiction already
acquired by the Sandiganbayan. There was also no denial of due process since the petitioner
was not precluded from filing a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the OMB.

With the declaration of nullity of DOJ Circular No. 41 which stripped off the Secretary of
Justice of self-imposed authority to issue HDOs, it becomes more imperative for the courts to
use their inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice. It was in response to this need that
A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC was issued. Specifically, it authorizes the issuance of a precautionary
HDO even prior to the filing of an information in court when justified under the
circumstances. This recognizes the fact that the processes leading to the filing of a case
usually take a while before they are concluded such that by the time the information is filed
in court, the accused may have already left the country and is now beyond the reach of courts.
This renders futile the processes taken up prior to the filing of information and stalls the
administration of justice until the accused is brought to the jurisdiction of the court. The
issuance of a precautionary HDO cures this
predicament.