BONIFACIO, et.

al
vs
RTC OF MAKATI & GIMENEZ
GR No. 184800, May 5, 2010
FACTS:

Private respondent Jesse John Gimenez filed in behalf of the Yuchengco family,
a complaint against petitioners Wonina Bonifacio, et.al and other officers and members
of the organization Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI), which maintaining
a website (www.pepcoalition.com) for violation of Art. 355 in relation to Art. 353 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).
PEPCI appears to have been formed by a large group of disgruntled plan holders
of Pacific Plans, Inc. (PPI) – wholly owned subsidiary of Great Pacific Life Assurance
Corporation, also owned by the Yuchengco Group of Companies (YGC) who had
previously purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but were unable to collect
thereon or avail of the benefits thereunder after PPI, due to liquidity concerns, filed for
corporate rehabilitation with prayer for suspension of payment before the Makati RTC.
PEPCI maintained the above-mentioned website, while private respondent also
alleges that the group maintained a blog and an email address, publishing statements
that are all aimed at PPI and their ongoing controversy.
Private respondent further alleged that upon accessing the above-stated website
in Makati on various dates from August 25 to October 2, 2005, he was applied to read
13 articles maliciously and recklessly caused to be published by PEPCI containing
highly derogatory statements and false accusations, relentlessly attacking the
Yuchengco Family, YGC and particularly Malayan.
The Prosecutor, finding probable cause to indict the accused, filed 13 separate
Information charging the above-mentioned accused with libel.
Several of the accused appealed the Resolution by petition for review to the
Secretary of Justice who reversed the finding of probable cause and accordingly
directed the withdrawal of the Information for Libel filed in court, opining that the crime
of “internet libel” was non-existent (at the time of the present case), hence, the accused
could not be charged with libel under Article 353 of the RPC.
Petitioner then filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the grounds that it
failed to vest jurisdiction in the Makati RTC and that internet libel is not covered by
Article 353 of the RPC, maintaining that the Information failed to allege a particular
place within the trial court’s jurisdiction where the subject article was printed and first
published.
Public respondent Makati RTC quashed the information, finding that it lacked any
allegations that the offended parties were actually residing in Makati at the time of the
commission of the offense as in fact they listed their address in the complaint-affidavit at
Yuchengco Tower in Binondo, Manila; or that the alleged libelous article was printed
and first published in Makati.
The prosecution moved to reconsider, citing a previous case where the Court
held that the information need not allege verbatim that the libelous publication was
“printed and first published” in the appropriate venue.
Public respondent court granted the motion for reconsideration and ordering the
prosecution to cure the defect.
Petitioners filed a motion to quash the amended information which was denied by
public respondent and likewise denied their motion for reconsideration, finding the
amended information sufficient in form.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner violated the rule on the hierarchy of courts to render the
petition dismissible.

RULING:

No. The petitioners did not violate the rule. The venue is jurisdictional in criminal
actions such that the place where the crime was committed determines not only the
venue of the action but also constitutes an essential element of jurisdiction. This
principle acquires even greater import in libel cases, given that Article 360, as amended,
specifically provides for the possible venues for the institution of the criminal and civil
aspects of such cases.
It becomes clear that the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private
individual is limited to only either of two places namely: (1) where the complainant
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense, (2) where the alleged
defamatory article was printed and first published.