Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Libel Jurisprudence
Libel Jurisprudence
Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, libel is defined as
a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to
discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of libel are: (a)
imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the
imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.
[Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47971, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, 67]
In libel cases, the question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means, but
what the words used by him mean. Jurisprudence has laid down a test to determine
the defamatory character of words used in the following manner, viz:
On the other hand, to satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that
at least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the
defamatory statement. In the case of Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr. (16 SCRA 807) the
Supreme Court ruled that �in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that
the victim be identifiable (People vs. Monton, L-16772, November 30, 1962),
although it is not necessary that he be named (19 A.L.R. 116).� In an earlier case,
the high court also declared that� � defamatory matter which does not reveal the
identity of the person upon whom the imputation is cast, affords no ground of
action unless it be shown that the readers of the libel could have identified the
personality of the individual defamed.� (Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons 42
Phil. 760).
PRESUMPTION OF MALICE:
The law also presumes that malice is present in every defamatory imputation. Thus,
Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides that:
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of
any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of
confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of
their functions.�
In order to constitute malice, ill will must be personal. So if the ill will is
engendered by one�s sense of justice or other legitimate or plausible motive, such
feeling negatives actual malice. [Aquino, Ramon C., The Revised Penal Code, Vol.
III, Bk. II, 1997 Ed., citing People v. de los Reyes, Jr., 47 OG 3569]
It is established doctrine that the malice that attends the dissemination of the
article alleged to be libelous must attend the distribution itself. It cannot be
merely a resentment against a person, manifested unconnectedly several months
earlier or one displayed at a much later date.
HOW COMMITTED:
Under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, libel may be committed by means of
writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE:
Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of
any defamation in writing or bysimilar means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a
daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the
defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.
DEFENSES:
In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the
court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover,
that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants
shall be acquitted.
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he
shall be acquitted.