G.R. NO.

72383

MARCELO SORIANO vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELATE COURT, HON. AUXENCIO DACUYCUY, and HON.
FRANCISCO TANTUICO, JR.

November 9, 1988

Doctrine: Art 360 of the RPC holds Publishers responsible, as if they were the author, for the defamation in the
articles they published.

FACTS:

An information for libel was filed against petitioner Marcelo Soriano and six (6) because of press releases and articles
imputing to Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr. ,the then Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA), the tampering by COA
personnel of election returns in the May 14, 1984 Batasan elections at his residence in Tacloban City and in the COA
Regional Office in Palo, Leyte.

This election offense was allegedly committed at Tantuico's order to assure the victory of certain candidates in the
said Batasan elections.

The petitioner filed a motion to quash the information on the ground of improper venue as the court has no jurisdiction
over the offense charged because under Art 360 of the RPC, the libel case should have been filed at Quezon City
where Tantuico holds office and publishes the "Guardian" .

When the Trial court ruled that since the article was printed and first published in the City of Tacloban the venue was
proper, Tantuico once again raised the same issues in his petition for certiorari.

The appellate court dismissed the petition in a decision dated September 12, 1985. It held that the Regional Trial
Court of Leyte had jurisdiction over the libel case. The appellate court also denied a motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Leyte may try the libel case.

RULING:

No. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1289 and Republic Act No. 4363
provides: “The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this
chapter shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission on of the offense.”

Provided, however, that where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the
time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of
the city, or province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not
hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he
held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and
in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shad be filed in the Court of First Instance of the
province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is
printed and first published: ...

In Agbayani v Sayo the court summarized this as:

1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published.

2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the
province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense.

3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the
action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense.

The lower courts applied the rule that the jurisdiction of a court to try an offense is determined by the allegations of the
complaint or information; since the information states that the articles were first published in Tacloban, they ruled that
the RTC of Leyte had Jurisdiction.
However, we follow the “Multiple Publication Rule” which makes it so each and every publication of the same libel
constitutes a distinct offense (Montinola v. Montalvo). In relation to Art 360 this means every time the same written
matter is communicated such communication is considered a distinct and separate publication of the libel.

Since Petitioner was included as an accused due to his position as publisher of the “Guardian”; Art 360 of the RPC
holds him responsible, as if he were the author, for the defamation in the articles he published.

Thus, as far as Soriano is concerned, his criminal liability, if any, allegedly stemmed from his publication of an article
captioned "IMPEACH TANTUICO CASE LOOMS" prepared in Tacloban by Villegas.

The place of 1st publication must be construed as the place where he published said article in the Guardian. Ergo,
since the respondent COA Chairman held office in Quezon City and the offending newspaper is published in Quezon
City; through applying Art 360 of the RTC, the venue and jurisdiction over subject criminal case for libel should be
lodged not in Tacloban City but in Quezon City.

The case should be filed with a Quezon City court instead of the Leyte RTC.

WHEREFORE the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The Regional Trial Court of Leyte, is DIRECTED TO
DISMISS Criminal Case in so far its petitioner Marcelo Soriano is concerned.