Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest
Case Digest
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
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.
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.
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.