CASES FACTS
1. Fermin v. Fermin, the petitioner, was charged
People, 550 with libel for writing and publishing a
SCRA 132 , defamatory article in a tabloid. The
March 28, complainants in the case were
2008 (Topic: Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo
Generally) Gutierrez. The libelous article
contained accusations of criminal
behavior, including malversation of
funds, and portrayed the complainants
as fugitives from the law who had
returned to the Philippines to evade
prosecution in the United States. The
article also implied that Annabelle
Rama Gutierrez lost money through
irresponsible gambling in casinos.
In the trial at the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City, Fermin argued
that the article was merely a fair and
honest comment on the issuance of a
warrant of arrest against Annabelle
Rama Gutierrez. She also claimed that
she had no malice in writing the article.
However, the RTC convicted Fermin of
libel and ordered her to pay moral
damages to the Gutierrez couple.
The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the
petitioner's motion for reconsideration,
finding it without merit. Following the
denial of the motion for
reconsideration by the CA, the
petitioner filed a petition with the
Supreme Court.
2. De Mesa v. De Mesa and other petitioners
Pepsi Cola (plaintiffs) held soft drink bottle caps
Products Phils., with the number 349, believing it to be
ISSUES RULING
1. Whether or not Thesis:
the publication
of the Yes, the publication of the
defamatory defamatory article constituted libel.
article
constitutes Rule:
libel.
Article III, Section 4, 1987 Philippine
Constitution): This constitutional
provision guarantees the right to
freedom of speech, of expression,
and of the press. It states that no
law shall be passed abridging these
rights.
Jurisprudence provides that,
freedom of speech and freedom of
the press, while constitutionally
protected rights, are not absolute
and must be exercised responsibly.
It is important to balance freedom
of expression with the protection of
individual rights and reputation.
Application:
In the case at bar, the court ruled in
favor of the Gutierrez family, finding
Fermin guilty of libel. The court held
that Fermin's article contained
malicious and false statements that
imputed crimes, vices, and defects
to the complainants, which had the
potential to cause dishonor,
discredit, or contempt. The court
also considered Fermin's close
association with political candidates
during an election campaign,
indicating a motive to harm the
reputation of the complainants
during the electoral contest.
Conclusion:
Thus, the Decision of the Court of
Appeals is affirmed. Petitioner is
sentenced to pay a fine of ₱6,000.00
in each case, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The award of moral damages in
favor of complainants ₱500,000.00
each. Costs are to be borne by the
petitioner.
1. Whether or not Thesis:
the dismissal of
the plaintiffs' Yes, the dismissal of the plaintiffs'