REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

i. Article 154 RPC as amended by RA 10951

ii. Crimes Against Honor
- Articles 354, 355, 356 of the RPC
iii. Cases (Libel)
a. Brillante v CA
b. Baguio Midland v Labo
c. Yuchengco v The Manila Chronicle
d. Punongbayan-Visitacion v People
e. Nova Communications v Atty. Canoy
 Article 154 as amended by RA 10951

Publishing or causing Encouraging Maliciously Printing, publishing

to be published, by disobedience to the law publishing or causing or distributing (or
means of printing, or to the to be causing
lithography or any constituted authorities published any official the same) books,
other or praising, justifying resolution or pamphlets,
means of publication, or document periodicals, or
as news any false extolling any act without proper leaflets which do not
news punished by law, by authority, or before bear the real printer’s
which may endanger the same they have name, or which are
the public order; or means or by words, been published classified as
cause damage to the utterances or speeches; officially; anonymous.
interest or credit of
the
State;

Among the key amendments is a penalty of imprisonment for up to six months and
a fine of up to ₱200,000 for spreading false news.
 Crimes Against Honor (T13 Ch. 1 – Libel)
Article 354 Article 355 Article 356
Requirement for publicity. - Libel by Means of Writings or Threatening to publish and offer
Every defamatory imputation is Similar Means to present such publication for a
presumed to be malicious, even if compensation.
it be true, if no good intention Libel may be committed by
and justifiable motive for making means of – Acts punished:
it is shown, except in the 1. Writing; 1. Threatening another to publish
following cases: 2. Printing; a libel concerning him, or his
3. Lithography; parents, spouse, child, or other
1. A private communication made 4. Engraving; members of his family;
by any person to another in the 5. Radio; 2. Offering to prevent the
performance of any legal, moral 6. Photograph; publication of such libel for
or social duty; and 7. Painting; compensation or money
2. A fair and true report, made in 8. Theatrical exhibition; consideration.
good faith, without any 9. Cinematographic exhibition; or
comments or remarks, of actual 10. Any similar means.
proceedings.
 Crimes Against Honor
 Libel - a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstances tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
 CASES

BRILLANTE
v
CA
 Brillante v CA
Facts:
Roberto Brillante, then a candidate for the position of councilor in Makati City held a press
conference at the Makati Sports Club which was attended by some 50 journalists.
In the course of the press conference, Brillante accused Binay of plotting the assassination of
Syjuco. He further accused Binay of terrorism, intimidation and harassment of the Makati
electorate.
Brillante also circulated among the journalists copies of an open letter to President Aquino
which discussed in detail his charges against Binay. Several journalists wrote articles regarding
the same and an open letter was published as well.
As a result of the publication of the open letter, Binay filed with the Makati fiscals office four
complaints for libel against Brillante.
 Brillante v CA
Facts:
Petitioner appealed to CA on the ground of
 prescription; (publication – Jan 10-12, 1988 ; filing of Information – Jan 16, 1989)
 publication is considered privileged communication and is entitled to equal protection of the
laws and should be acquitted of the offenses charged like his co-accused - DENIED;
 MR – DENIED
 Brillante v CA
Issue(s):
1. Whether the act of libel charged against petitioner has prescribed when the information was
filed before the trial court.

2. Whether the open letter can be considered as privilege communication.

 Brillante v CA
Held:
1. No. Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of libel shall prescribe
within one year. In determining when the one year prescriptive period should be reckoned,
reference must be made to Article 91 of the same code which sets forth the rule on the
computation of prescriptive periods of offenses which states that period of prescription shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information.
The offense of libel had not yet prescribed because the one-year prescription period should be
reckoned from the time that complainant filed his complaint with the fiscals office on January
15, 1988 and not when the Informations were filed by the prosecutor on January 16, 1989. The
institution of the complaint before the fiscals office or the courts for preliminary investigation
interrupts the prescriptive period of the offense charged.
 Brillante v CA
Held:
2. No. In order to prove that a statement falls within the purview of a qualifiedly privileged
communication, the following requisites must concur:
(i) the person who made the communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the
communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of
the one to whom it is made; (ii) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or
superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the
protection sought; and (iii) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and
without malice.
Although the open letter was primarily addressed to then President Aquino, the communication
thereof was not limited to her alone. It was also published in several newspapers of general
circulation and was thus made known to the general public.
CASES

LABO
v
 Baguio Midland Courier v Labo
Facts:
Oseo Hamada was the president and general manager of the “Baguio Printing and Publishing
Co., Inc.”, which publishes the “Baguio Midland Courier”, a weekly newspaper published and
circulated in Baguio City and other provinces within the Cordillera Region. He was also the
business manager of the said newsweekly. Petitioner Cecille Afable was the editor-in-chief of
the “Baguio Midland Couriers” and one of its columnists who ran the column “In and Out of
Baguio”.
Private respondent Ramon Labo, Jr., on the other hand, was among the mayoralty candidates in
Baguio City for the January 1988 elections. Prior to this, in 1984, Labo had already embarked
on a political career by running for a seat in the former Batasang Pambansa during which time
he appointed a certain Benedicto Carantes as his campaign manager.
 Baguio Midland Courier v Labo
Facts:
It appears that as part of the campaign propaganda for Labo in the 1984 local elections, political
ads appeared in the various issues of Baguio Midland Courier and campaign paraphernalia were
printed by Baguio Printing and Publishing Co., Inc., on his behalf.

Before the 18 January 1988 local elections, petitioner Afable wrote in her column a series of
articles dealing with the candidates for the various elective positions in Baguio City.
 Baguio Midland Courier v Labo
Facts:
January 3, 1998 issue of the MBC, Afable in her column “In and Out of Baguio” made the
following comments:
“Of all the candidates for mayor, Labo has the most imponderables about him, people would
ask, Can he read and write? Why is he always talking about his Japanese father-in-law? Is he
really a Japanese Senator or a barrio kapitan? Is it true that he will send P18 million aid to
Baguio? Somebody wanted to put an advertisement of Labo in the Midland Courier but was
refused because he has not yet paid his account of the last time he was a candidate for
Congress. We will accept all advertisements for him if he pays his old accounts first.”
 Baguio Midland Courier v Labo
Facts:
January 10, 1998 issue of the MBC, Afable in her column “In and Out of Baguio” made the
following comments:
“I heard that the Dumpty in the egg is campaigning for Cortes. Not fair. Some real doctors are
also busy campaigning against Labo, because he has not also paid their medical services with
them. Since he is donating millions he should settle his small debts like the reportedly
insignificant amount of P27,000 only. If he wins several teachers were signifying to resign and
leave Baguio forever, and Pangasinan will be the franca-liqua of Baguio.”
 Baguio Midland Courier v Labo
Facts:
As a result, Labo filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Baguio as he claimed that
said articles were tainted with malice. He likewise filed a separate criminal complaint before
the Office of the City Prosecutor but was dismissed.

Labo claimed that the said articles were libelous because he was allegedly described as the
“dumpty in the egg” or one who is a failure in business, who according to him is false because
he is a very successful business man, and that he is a “balasubas” due to his alleged failure to
pay his medical expenses.
 Baguio Midland Courier v Labo
Facts:
RTC – dismissed Labo’s complaint for damages on the ground that the article was privileged
and constituted fair comment on matters of public interest as it dealt with integrity, reputation
and honesty of Labo who was a candidate for Mayor of Baguio City.

CA – reversed the decision of CA, ordered petitioners to pay Labo damages in the amount of
P350, 000 after concluding that the “dumpty in the egg” refers to no one but Labo himself.
Contention of Labo: Afable could not invoke “public interest” to justify the publication since he
was not yet a public official at that time.
 Baguio Midland Courier v Labo
Issue(s):

Whether the articles are covered by the

constitutional right to freedom of speech and press.
 Baguio Midland Courier v Labo
Held:
Yes.
The articles are within the mantle of protection guaranteed by the freedom of expression.

The argument of Labo is without merit since he was already a candidate for city mayor of
Baguio. It is the public’s right to be informed of the mental, moral, and physical fitness of
candidates for public office. (US v Sedano; New York Times v Sullivan)
 Baguio Midland Courier v Labo
Held:
The CA is wrong when it held that Labo is the “dumpty in the egg” in the article. The article
stated that “The Dumpty in the Egg is campaigning for Cortes”, another candidate for mayor
and opponent of Labo himself.

In line with the doctrine in Borjal v CA, that “it is not sufficient that the offended party
recognized himself as the person attacked or defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third
person could identify him as the object of the libelous publication”, the case should be
dismissed since Labo utterly failed to dispose of this responsibility.
 Baguio Midland Courier v Labo
Held:

Clearly, the questioned articles constitute fair comment

on a matter of public interest as it dealt with the character
of the private respondent who was running for the top
elective post in Baguio City at that time.
 CASES

YUCHENGCO
 Yuchengco v Manila Chronicle
Facts:
Manila Chronicle, owned by Coyuito, were sued by Yuchengco in a civil action for damages for
libelous publication, abuse of right and attorney’s fees and costs.

RTC and CA ruled for Yuchengco and found respondents liable as all elements for the action
were present including actual malice.

However, the CA later reversed in a Resolution ruling that the articles published were
qualifiedly privileged communication as they are fair commentaries on matters of public
interest despite actual malice being present and therefore exempted for liability for damages.
 Yuchengco v Manila Chronicle
Facts:
SC held that CA erred in ruling that qualifiedly privileged communications are
automatically exempted from liability despite the finding of actual malice. Article
354 only pertains to presumptions and as exceptions to such presumptions,
qualifiedly privileged communications like fair commentaries can still hold a
person liable if actual malice is proven as in the case at bar. Even if actual malice
is proven, the subject articles cannot be considered as fair commentaries on
matters of public interest as Yuchengco is not a public figure or official but a
private individual.
 Yuchengco v Manila Chronicle
Facts:
Nov 10 and 12, 1993 issues (“Yuchengko joins forces with Kokoy” and “RCBC probed for
violating CB rules”): He alleges that the Chronicle Publishing Corporation published in the
Manila Chronicle a series of defamatory articles against him accusing him:
- to be a "Marcos crony" or a "Marcos-Romualdez crony”
- as a dummy for the Marcos and Romualdez clans in Benguet Corp as seen in the election of
the 2 sons of Romualdez
- of immoral business practices by insinuating that the grant of interest free loan of P101
million by RCBC to Piedras Petroleum Corporation
 Yuchengco v Manila Chronicle
Facts:
- intentionally causing the failure of Benguet Corp
- of being an unfair and uncaring employer when the employees of Grepalife staged a strike
because of company’s refusal to grant them better salaries and benefits
- of inducing RCBC to violate the provisions of the General Banking Act on DOSRI loan
- of inducing others to disobey lawful orders of the SEC
- the derogatory tag of "corporate raider," implying that he was seeking to profit for something
he did not work for
 Yuchengco v Manila Chronicle
Issues & Ruling:
1. Whether defamatory imputation is present? (YES)
Subject articles contain defamatory imputations. All of the following imputations: (1) the
labeling of Yuchengco as a Marcos crony, who took advantage of his relationship with the
former President to gain unwarranted benefits; (2) the insinuations that Yuchengco induced
others to disobey the lawful orders of SEC; (3) the portrayal of Yuchengco as an unfair and
uncaring employer due to the strike staged by the employees of Grepalife; (4) the accusation
that he induced RCBC to violate the provisions of the General Banking Act on DOSRI loans;
and (5) the tagging of Yuchengco as a "corporate raider" seeking to profit from something he
did not work for, all exposed Yuchengco to public contempt and ridicule, for they imputed to
him a condition that was dishonorable.
 Yuchengco v Manila Chronicle
Issues & Ruling:
2. Whether publication is present? (YES)
Among the elements of libel, the most apparent in the present case would be the
publication of the alleged imputation. Libel is published not only when it is
widely circulated, but also when it is made known or brought to the attention or
notice of another person other than its author and the offended party. (United
States v. Ubiñana). The circulation of an allegedly libelous matter in a newspaper
is certainly sufficient publication.
 Yuchengco v Manila Chronicle
Issues & Ruling:

3. Whether malice is present? (YES)

Publication of the subject articles was attended by actual malice. There
is preponderance of evidence showing that there exists malice in fact in
the writing and publication of the subject libelous articles.
 Yuchengco v Manila Chronicle
Issues & Ruling:
4. Whether identification of person defamed is present? (YES)
Yuchengco was clearly identified as the libeled party in the subject defamatory
imputations. All but one of the subject articles explicitly mention the name of
Yuchengco and that lone article even chided the owners of RCBC, who include
Yuchengco.
 CASES

Punongbayan-Visitacion
v
People of the Philippines
Fine not Imprisonment
 Punongabayn-Visitacion v PP
Facts:
Petitioner Marilou Punongbayan-Visitacion (Visitacion) was the corporate secretary and
assistant treasurer of St. Peter's College of Iligan City. On 26 July 1999, acting on the advice of
her counsel, she wrote a letter to private respondent Carmelita P. Punongbayan (Punongbayan).
The correspondence substantially read:
“Upon advice of our legal counsel which I had been instructed to hereunder quote this should
answer the concerns you embodied in the July 19 memo to Security Bank as well as the July
23, memo to the office of the treasurer to wit:
 Punongabayn-Visitacion v PP
Facts:
A. You had been preening (sic) as the school's validly appointed/designated president when
such is not the fact. The validity of the alleged March 10 meeting of the management is still the
subject of an on-going determination by the SEC and your misrepresentation as the school's
President has no basis in law and in fact.
B. Even as Officer-in-Charge, your actions on school matters need prior consultation and
ratification of the management committees. No such consultation/ratification was had on these
matters.
C. You KNOWINGLY COMMITTED ACTS OF FALSIFICATION when you misrepresented
to the bank that your signature is essentially required in disbursements above ₱5,000.00. Your
inordinate desire to poke into the school's finances could be the byproduct of an erroneous
advice from some defrocked members of the committee. Otherwise, there would have been
need to calibrate amounts in the checks vis-a-vis the signatories thereto.”
 Punongabayn-Visitacion v PP
Facts:
Insulted, Punongbayan filed a Complaint for Libel against Visitacion.

RTC - convicted Visitacion of libel. It opined that if it was true that Visitacion merely wanted to
safeguard the corporation funds, her resort to an uncivil and confrontational manner was
unwarranted.
The RTC highlighted that the letter belittled, disparaged, and willfully hurt Punongbayan's
sensibilities.
 Punongabayn-Visitacion v PP
Issue(s):

Whether the lower court correctly imposed the penalty of fine (and not
imprisonment) and payment or moral damages.
 Punongabayn-Visitacion v PP
Held:
Yes. The imposition of a fine, instead of imprisonment, is sufficient in the
present case.
Relevant is Administrative Circular (A. C.) No. 08-08 which provides for
guidelines in the imposition of penalties in libel cases. The pertinent portion
thereof reads: The foregoing cases indicate an emergent rule of preference
for the imposition of fine only rather than imprisonment in libel cases under
the circumstances therein specified. All courts and judges concerned should
henceforth take note of the foregoing rule of preference set by the Supreme
Court on the matter of the imposition of penalties for the crime of libel
bearing in mind the following principles:
 Punongabayn-Visitacion v PP
Held:

1. This Administrative Circular does not remove imprisonment as an alternative

penalty for the crime of libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code;
2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking
into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether
the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or
whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness
of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to
the imperatives of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine,
there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code
provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.
 Punongabayn-Visitacion v PP
Held:

A review of A.C. No. 08-08 reveals that it was issued to embody the
Court's preference, as espoused in previous jurisprudence, to impose
only a fine for conviction of libel. The said circular, however, does not
remove the discretion of courts to sentence to imprisonment the
accused in libel cases should the circumstances warrant. In other
words, judicial policy states a fine alone is generally acceptable as a
penalty for libel. Nevertheless, the courts may impose imprisonment as
a penalty if, under the circumstances, a fine is insufficient to meet the
demands of substantial justice or would depreciate the seriousness of
the offense.
 Punongabayn-Visitacion v PP
Held:

Thus, pursuant to the policy in A.C. No. 08-08, the Court finds that the
imposition of a fine, instead of imprisonment, is sufficient in the
present case. It is noteworthy that Visitacion is a first-time offender
with no other criminal record under her name. Further, the degree of
publication is not that widespread considering that the libelous letter
was circulated only to a few individuals.
 Punongabayn-Visitacion v PP
Held:
Moral damages in libel cases
In Tulfo v. People, the Court explained that moral damages can be recovered in cases of libel or
slander, viz: “It was the articles of Tulfo that caused injury to Atty. So, and for that Atty. So
deserves the award of moral damages. Justification for the award of moral damages is found in
Art. 2219 (7) of the Civil Code, which states that moral damages may be recovered in cases of
libel, slander, or any other form of defamation. As the cases involved are criminal cases of libel,
they fall squarely within the ambit of Art. 2219(7).”

For moral damages to be awarded, proof of pecuniary loss is unnecessary but the factual basis
of damages and its causal connection to the defendant's acts must be satisfactorily established.
In short, the complainant's injury should have been due to the actions of the offending party.
 Punongabayn-Visitacion v PP
Held:
Here, the evidence on record justify the award of moral damages to Punongbayan.
She was a high-ranking officer of an educational institution whom Visitacion
accused of criminal or improper conduct. Such accusations were not made known
only to the victim but also to other persons such as her staff and employees of a
bank the school had transactions with. Thus, Punongbayan's reputation was
besmirched and she was humiliated before her subordinates and other people.
Clearly, her reputation was tarnished after being accused of unsavory and
questionable behavior, primarily attributable to Visitacion's act of circulating the
letter imputing wrongdoing of Punongbayan.
 Punongabayn-Visitacion v PP
Held:
Moral damages are not a bonanza. They are given to ease the defendant's grief and suffering.
Moral damages should be reasonably approximate to the extent of the hurt caused and the
gravity of the wrong done. With this in mind, the Court finds the award of ₱3M as moral
damages to be unwarranted. Such exorbitant amount is contrary to the essence of moral
damages, which is simply a reasonable recompense to the injury suffered by the one claiming
it. It was neither meant to punish the offender nor enrich the offended party. Thus, to conform
with the present circumstances, the moral damages awarded should be equitably reduced to
₱500,000.00.
 CASES

Nova Communications
v
Atty. Canoy
 Nova Communications v Atty. Canoy
Facts:
On October 1990, a series of articles against Atty. Canoy were written by Locsin, Jr. and
Molina that were printed in the Philippine Free Press Issue published by LR Publications and
Philippine Daily Globe and Nova Communications.
Because of the subject articles, Atty. Canoy and his wife filed a civil case for damages for the
libelous articles. They claimed that the articles were designed to malign, embarrass, humiliate,
and ridicule him and his wife.
Nova Communications alleged that Atty. Canoy was merely tangentially mentioned in the
subject articles with no intention to cast dishonor, discredit, contempt, or ridicule upon his
person but on his proven identification with and involvement in the Noble rebellion. As a
public figure, Atty. Canoy’s activities are matters imbued with public interest. Hence, the said
words should be understood as descriptive of an act which had sinister consequences on the
security of the state.
 Nova Communications v Atty. Canoy
Facts:
RTC ruled in favor of Atty. Canoy and ordered the petitioners to pay Atty. Canoy and Mrs.
Canoy for litigation expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal to the CA but the same decision from RTC was
affirmed with reduction of the damages.
 Nova Communications v Atty. Canoy
The excerpts of the subject articles:
I
x x x His revolt was doomed not least because he teamed up with a veritable mental asylum patient, Reuben
Canoy and adopted as his own Canoy's ludicrous federalism/secessionist movement[.] (p. 13 under the editorial
entitled, 'Lunatic Rebellion', x x x).
x x x [A]long the way, he was joined by Reuben Canoy, a madman with about 10,000 deranged followers.
Canoy has been preaching the establisment of a separate Mindanao Republic, with him as the head naturally. x
x x[.] (p. 13, under the cover of 'War in Mindanao' by Louise Molina, x x x).

II
x x x He and a composite force of rebel soldiers, tribesmen and a large slice of the lunatic federalist fringe of
Mindanao led by Reuben Canoy had received a rapturous welcome from the AFP in every camp he and his
ragged band pass from Butuan to Cagayan x x x[.] (2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph, Daily Globe).
x x x He walked into Camp Evangelista at the head of a motley crowed (sic); a composite force of renegade
AFP, tribesmen and a large slice of the lunatic federalist fringe in Mindanao led by radio commentator Reuben
Canoy x x x[.] (2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph, Free Press x x x).
 Nova Communications v Atty. Canoy
The excerpts of the subject articles:
III
x x x He delivered his side of the bargain. Every camp and outpost he passed cheered him on
his way from Butuan to Cagayan de Oro. But the RAM let him down and later, even the lunatic
Canoy. No wonder, he thought surrendering at once x x x. (middle of the 5th paragraph, Daily
Globe x x x, reproduced verbatim in the Free Press) x x x.

IV
x x x Something was going wrong. He was being cheered but not joined except by a certified
lunatic Reuben Canoy, who was clamoring for the very thing that soldiers like himself, has
fought to stop the dismemberment of the republic. He joined his shout[s] to Canoy's - but his
had no conviction for an independent Mindanao - what choice did he have, Canoy was the only
one in the pier when he arrived x x x. (2nd half of paragraph 11, under Opinion of the Daily
Globe, x x x, reprinted verbatim as page 16 of the Free Press) x x x
 Nova Communications v Atty. Canoy
Issue(s):

Whether the subject articles are libelous.

 Nova Communications v Atty. Canoy
Held:
Yes, the subject articles are libelous.
In Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation v. Domingo, the Court said that:
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.
 Nova Communications v Atty. Canoy
Held:

Beyond question, the words imputed to Atty. Canoy as a veritable

mental asylum patient, a madman and a lunatic, in its plain and
ordinary meaning, are conditions or circumstances tending to dishonor
or discredit him. As such, these are defamatory or libelous per se.