1

SUBJECT: Legal Research TOPIC: Case Digest

CASE TITLE: The United States v. Fred Dorr, et. al.
CASE NUMBER: G.R No. 1049
PONENTE: Cooper J. CASE DATE: May 16, 1903
SUMMARY:
This case is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of First Instance, which
affirmed appellants, Fred L. Dorr and O’Brien’s conviction for the publication of
malicious libel against Señor Benito Legarda with regard to Section 1, 7 and 8 of
Act No. 277.

RELEVANT DOCTRINE:
A libel is a malicious defamation, expressed either in writing, printing, or by signs or
pictures, or the like, or public theatrical exhibitions, tending to blacken the memory of
one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation, or publish the alleged
or natural defects of one who is alive and thereby expose him to public hatred,
contempt, or ridicule.

FACTS
 The defendant Fred L. Dorr was the proprietor and Edward F. O’Brien was
the editor of “Manila Freedom” .
 A complaint was filed due to the publication of malicious libel against Señor
Benito Legarda, by placing certain headlines or caption above an article in
their newspaper.
 The article, which is the privileged statement or judicial proceedings,
arose on the libel case of the US v. Valdez, the complaining witness of that
case being Señor Legarda, who was also the complaining witness in the
case at bar.
 The counsel for the defendant Valdez prepared a written statement of
certain facts, where a copy of this statement was made by the reporter of
“Manila Freedom” – one Vogel – who handed it to the defendant O’Brien,
the editor who wrote the headline and the article.
 The defendants were found guilty of the offense and each was sentenced
to 6 months imprisonment at hard labor and a fine of $1,000. Defendants
appealed to the court.
 A demurrer was filed to the complaint, based upon the ground that the
facts charged in the complaint did not constitute a public offense. It was
overruled by the court.
 A motion was made by the defendants asking that they be granted a trial
by jury, as provided for by the Constituition of the US and under the 6th
Amendment to the Constitution. The motion was denied.
ISSUES

(1) Whether or not trials by jury are in force in the Philippine Islands – No.
(2) Whether or not the Congress could lawfully authorize the Philippine
Commission to enact the libel law – Yes.
(3) Whether or not the facts charged in the complaint constitute a public
offense. – Yes.

HOLDING

(1) No. Constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to trial by

jury has been introduced in the Philippines by the simple act of
cession, there is no law in existence to give such provision
effect.
2

The Constitution was not extended here by the terms of the treaty of Paris,
under which the Philippine Islands were acquired from Spain. By the treaty the
status of the ceded territory was to be determined by Congress. The right to trial
by jury has not been extended here by the mere act of the cession of the
territory.

In this case, Congress has passed no law extending here the provision of the
Constitution relating to jury trials, nor were any laws in existence in the
Philippine Islands, at the date of their cession, for trials by jury, and
consequently there is no law in the Philippine Islands entitling the defendants in
this case to such trial; that the Court of First Instance committed no error in
overruling their application for a trial by jury.

(2) Yes. Philippine Commission is a body expressly recognized and

sanctioned by act of Congress, having the power to pass laws,
and has the power to pass the libel law under which the
defendants were convicted.

Congress, in the exercise of its power to make rules and regulations for the
government of the territories, has often delegated the power of legislation to the
territorial government. The case of American Insurance Company, vs. Canter (1
Pet., 511), before cited, originated under an act of the governor and legislative
council of Florida, organizing a court and vesting in it admiralty jurisdiction, and
in which the jurisdiction of the court was sustained by the Supreme Court of the
United States.

(3) Yes. Section 3 follows that an injurious publication is presumed

to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is
shown.

In this case, no attempt has been made by the defendants to show a

justifiable motive, and the established presumption of law that the publication
was malicious must prevail. Nor has there been any attempt made to show the
truth of the matter contained in the headlines.

The intention of the statute, as shown in sections 7 and 8, is that the

privileged matter should be a fair and true report, and must stand alone as such.
If headlines or captions are used, the matter contained in them must not be
remarks or comments of a libelous nature. If by any process additional
significance is added, either by display letters or by the arrangement of
catchwords, under whatever name they may be designated, it comes within the
denunciation of the statute.

It is immaterial what the real intention of those who write such headlines may
be; if such caption and headlines are libelous, the writer must hear the
consequences. The law declares the motive of the writer, in the absence of proof
of justifiable motive and the truth of the matter, to be malicious.

RULING / DISPOSITIVE PORTION

The publication of the caption and headlines in the “Manila Freedom” constituted
the offense of libel and the defendants Fred L. Dorr and Edward F. O’Brien are
guilty as charged; that no error was committed in the trial against the rights of
3

the defendants and that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should be
affirmed, with costs against the defendants. It is so ordered.