Tulfo v. People of the Philippines and Atty.

Carlos So
G.R. No. 187113, 11 January 2021
Ponente: Justice M. Leonen
Topic: libel vis-à-vis the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press and
statements involving public officers in the exercise of their official functions.
[Full case title: Raffy T. Tulfo Vs. People of the Philippines and Atty. Carlos T.
So/Allen A. Macasaet and Nicolas V. Quijano, Jr. Vs. Carlos T. So and People of the
Philippines]

These consolidated criminal cases originated from 14 Informations for libel filed
against the writer, publisher, and managing editor of the Abante Tonite column,
“Shoot to Kill”, which covered stories on the alleged anomalous dealings of Atty.
Carlos “Ding” So (Atty. So) of the Bureau of Customs. At issue are the Revised
Penal Code provisions on libel vis-à-vis the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
the press and statements involving public officers in the exercise of their official
functions.

FACTS:
 On 12 April 1999, after the ninth publication in Abante Tonite about his
purportedly dubious activities at the Bureau of Customs, Atty. So filed a
Complaint-Affidavit for nine (9) counts of libel against the three accused
(Tulfo, Macasaet and Quijano) for their abusive and malicious imputations
against him. He later filed more complaint in connection with subsequent
issues of Abante Tonite, when Tulfo refused to stop his alleged defamatory
statements.
In sum, Tulfo alleged Atty. So for his “shady dealings in the BOC” particularly
his reported extortion activities against brokers and shippers. Tulfo also wrote
about Atty. So’s alleged affair with a married woman.
Tulfo later filed his Counter-Affidavit, which Macasaet and Quijano adopted as
their Joint Counter-Affidavit. Subsequently, So filed a Reply, to which Tulfo
filed a Rejoinder.
 On 12 August 1999, Assistant City Prosec. Askali issued a Resolution finding
probable cause against the three accused for fourteen (14) counts of libel.
The three moved for reconsideration.

 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) entered a plea of not guilty for the three
accused, as the latter plead during the arraignment.

Tulfo’s defense:
Tulfo argued “lack of malicious intent” to publish as both he and So had not
known each other before the complaints were filed. He contended that the
statements he used in his articles were merely reported to him by broker-
complainants whose identities he could not reveal. He also contended that said
statements were verified by “other sources” from the BOC and he claimed that his
column serves as the voice of the complainants who were disadvantaged by those
being complained of. He argued “lack of malicious intent” to publish as both he and
So had not known each other before the complaints were filed.

Macasaet and Quijano’s defenses:

The law does not mention a publisher and managing editor as those liable for libel

 RTC DECISION: 28 February 2005, the RTC found the three accused
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of 14 counts of libel.
 COURT OF APPEALS (CA) DECISION: On 31 July 2006, the CA affirmed
the RTC’s conviction
 CA DECISION ON THE MR: On MR, the CA issued its Amended Decision
reconsidering its 31 July 2006 Decision. It acquitted the three accused on
eight (8) counts of libel, but sustained their Conviction for the other cases.
In so ruling, the CA applied the doctrines laid down in Borjal v. CA and
Vasquez v. CA which states that the discreditable imputations alleged in the
Informations being in connection with acts of a public official in the discharge
of public function. Thus, said actuations have to be gauged in accordance
with the standards in the mentioned cases, as to whether they are false and if
so, whether theya re made with actual malice – that is, with knowledge that it
is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The Court
has to go along with accused Tulfo that bare denials made by Atty. So cannot
prove falsity of the imputations.

 Petitioners filed two (2) partial Petition for Review assailing the portion of the
Amended Decision which affirmed their conviction for the other six counts of
libel
 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the People, filed its
Consolidated Comments. In turn, petitioners filed their Replies.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not petitioner Raffy Tulfo is liable for libel under Article 353 in
relation to Article 355 of the RPC;
 (2) Whether or not the published articles can be considered privileged
communication under Article 354 of the RPC; and,

(3) Whether or not petitioner Macasaet and Quijano, as publisher and

managing editor of Abante Tonite, are also liable for libel under Article 360 of
the RPC.

RULING:

(1) NO

Freedom of speech and of the press is a hard-fought right dating as far back
as the Spanish regime. However, these freedoms are not absolute, but
subject to restrictions such as laws against libel. The recognition of libel as a
limitation is rooted in one’s right to protect their reputation from malicious
attacks.

Petitioners argue that the prosecution failed to prove the falsity of the
allegations, much less actual malice in the making of said imputations. Also,
the imputations in the other cases relate to Atty. So’s public functions, thus,
fall within the ambit of qualified privileged communications.

Respondent counters that petitioners’ liability for libel attaches to the entire
text of the articles and not only to certain portions. It maintains that the
publications serve no purpose other than to publicy smear So’s reputation.

In sustaining a conviction for libel, the following elements must be proved:

(a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;

(b) publication of the charge;
(c) identity of the person defamed; and,
(d) existence of malice

 the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning

another

Article 353 of the RPC provides that an allegation is considered

defamatory if: “it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime,
the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to
dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to
blacken the memory of one who is dead”.

In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are

to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain,
 natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by
persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and
understood in another sense.

Insulting words are not actionable as libel per se, and a consequent
personal embarrassment does not mean this is automatically
equivalent to defamation. The court must still be satisfied that, from the
entirety of the impugned writing, it is defamatory.

 Publication of the charge

Citing Vasquez v. CA, the Court stressed that:

There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. It

is not required that the person defamed has read or heard about the
libelous remark. What is material is that a third person has read or
heard the libelous statement, for a “man’s reputation is the estimate in
which others hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself”.

 identity of the person defamed

To satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown at least a third

person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the
defamatory statement.

In the present case, the petitioners do not question the CA’s findings that the
first three elements exist. They only raised the issue that falsity or truthfulness if the
imputations and whether those are connected to Atty. So’s official functions. The
issues both pertain to the fourth element which is malice.

 Existence of malice

Malice exists when the prosecution proves that the author made the
defamatory statement knowing it was false, or even if true, there is no
showing of good intention and justifiable motive. It “implies an intention
to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm” and exists when “the offender is
prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to
duty, but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed”.

This requisite has evolved, there being a distinction involving private

persons and public officers and figures. Thus, whether the complainant
is a private or public person is a factor that must be considered.

Here, the prosecution admitted during pre-trial that at the time the
articles were published, private complainant Atty. So was a public
officer, the then officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Customs Intelligence
and Investigation Service at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.This
 admission shall be considered in determining petitioners' liability for
libel.

(2) YES

Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides that except for privileged
communications, every defamatory imputation is deemed malicious. On the
other hand, Article 361 recognizes the truth of an imputation as a defense in a
criminal prosecution for libel.

As an exception to the presumption that every defamatory imputation is

malicious, privileged communication has two kinds: absolute and qualified.

Absolute privileged communications include Article VI, Section 11 of the

Constitution, which states, "No Member [of Congress] shall be questioned nor
be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or
in any committee thereof." On the other hand, qualified privileged
communications include '"private communications"' and 'fair and true report
without any comment or remarks."'

In Borjal v. Court of Appeals, this Court recognized that the enumeration of

qualified privileged communications under Article 354 of the Revised Penal
Code is not exclusive. It decreed that "fair commentaries on matters of public
interest" are likewise deemed privileged by reason of the constitutional
guarantee of freedom of the press.

The Court emphasized that the Court has early on recognized the need to
read and interpret our libel laws in relation to the fundamental rights of free
speech and free press. Courts must examine libel cases involving a public
officer's exercise of official functions within the context of these constitutional
guarantees.

Every prosecution for libel, therefore, must undergo the rigorous and exacting
standard of ensuring that it does not violate the fundamental right to free
speech and the press. Unless the prosecution proves that the defamatory
statements were made with actual malice, a criminal case for libel against
critics of a public officer's exercise of official functions cannot prosper.

Reading the subject articles as a whole, these statements indicate Atty. So's
alleged use of connections to stay in position and conceal his misconduct.
They were written to end his purported abuse of public position.

From these, it can be deduced that the impugned articles fall within the
purview of qualified privileged communications. The columns relate to Atty.
So's exercise of his official functions. His alleged actuations refer to matters of
 public interest which the citizenry ought to know. As an official of the Bureau
of Customs, Atty. So is subject to a closer scrutiny by members of the media,
who act as sentinels of the public.

Having established the privileged nature of the Abante Tonite articles, the
burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that actual malice exists. The
prosecution is duty bound to show that the alleged defamatory statements
were made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not.

(3) NO

Court said that since the author of the impugned articles himself is not guilty
of libel, it follows that petitioners Macasaet and Quijano, the publisher and
managing editor of the Abante Tonite columns, must likewise be acquitted.

**However, the Court still discussed the contention of Macasaet and Quijano
that their conviction was solely because they were the publisher and
managing editor of Abante Tonite, without proof of their actual participation.

The Court explained that

when the accused has been specifically identified as "author, editor, or

proprietor" or "printer/publisher" of the publication, there is no requirement to
prove that they had knowledge and participation in the publication of the
article.

Thus, a claim of absence of participation by those persons responsible under

Article 360 will not shield them from liability. The law is clear: These persons
are liable for libel as if they were the author of the defamatory writing.

Philippine Daily Inquirer