BONIFACIO v.

RTC OF MAKATI (2010)

FACTS: Private respondent Jessie John Gimenez (Gimenez) filed, on behalf of the Yuchengco
family and of the Malayan Insurance Co. a criminal complaint before the RTC of Makati for 13
counts of libel under Art 355 in relation to 353 of the RPC against herein petitioners who are
officers of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc (PEPCI). Pepci is a large group of disgruntled
planholders of Pacific Plans, Inc (PPI) – a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Pacific Life Assurance
Corp, also owned by Yuchengco Group of Companies (YGC) – who had previously purchased
traditional pre-need educational plans but were unable to collect thereon due to liquidity concerns,
filed for corporate rehabilitation with prayer of suspension of payments before the Makati RTC.

Decrying PPI’s refusal to honor its obligations under the educational plans, PEPCI sought to
provide a forum by which the planholders could seek redress for their loss under the policies by
maintaining a website with the address of www.pepcoalition.com. Gimenez alleged that the same
website is easily accessible to the public. He further alleged that upon accessing the above-stated
website in Makati on various dates, he was appaled to read numerous articles which maliciously
and recklessly casued to be published by PEPCI containing highly derogatory statements and
false accusations against the Yuchengco Family, YGC, and Malayan.

By resolution, the Makati Prosecutor’s Office filed 13 counts of libel after finding probable cause to
indict the accused. Several of the accused appeled the Prosecutor’s resolution to the Secretary of
Justice which reversed the finding of probable cause and directed the withdrawal of the
information on the ground that internet libel, as a crime, is inexistent.

Petitioner then filed before the Makati RTC a Motion to Quash the information on the ground that it
failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC. Citing Macasaet v people, petitioners maintained that
the information failed to allege a particular place within the trial court’s jurisdiction where the
subject article was printed and first published or that the offended party resided in Makati at the
time the alleged defamatory material was printed and first published. The RTC of Makati, despite
finding probable cause, quashed the information, but upon motion for reconsideration, allowed the
prosecution to amend the information and the latter moved to have the amended information
admitted. Petitioners once more moved to have the amended information quashed on the same
ground but the RTC ruled that the information was sufficient in form.

ISSUE: W/N the RTC of Makati acted with grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended
information despite the failure to allege that the libelous articles were printed and first published by
the accused in Makati.

HELD: Yes, the venue of the action seeks to prevent undue harassment on the part of the
publisher by the complainant who, if the amended information would be allowed, can file in all
other locations where the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being accessed.

RATIO: Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where the crime was
committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitutes an essential element of
jurisdiction. It is clear that the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is
limited to only two places. 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission
of the offense, and 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. The
amended informationin the present case opted to lay the venue by availing of the second. RA
4363 amended Art 360 of the RPC which sets the venue for the filing of an information for a libel
case. The old rule allows the filing of an action for libel in any jurisdiction where the libellous article
was published or circulated. Clearly, the evil sought to be prevented by the amendment was the
indiscriminate or arbitrary laying of the venue in libel cases in distant, isolated or far-flung areas,
meant to accomplish nothing more than harass or intimidate an accused. To credit Gimenez’s
premise of equating his first access to the defamatory article on petitioner’s website in Makati with
printing and first publication would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Art 360 of the RPC
sought to discourage and prevent. For the Court to hold that the amended information sufficiently
vested jurisdiction in the courts of Makati simply because the defamatory article was accessed
therein would open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other locations where the
pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being accessed.