NOEL VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and YOLANDA CASTRO, Respondents.

FACTS: The accused Villanueva (a municipal councilor) went to the Vice-Mayors office (herein private complainant) for the application for monetized leave. As found by the court of appeals, the petitioners application was not immediately acted upon by the petitioner for no reason. This inaction on the part of the petitioner resulted to a barrage of insults from Villanueva. The petitioner uttered the following "Ibuat daka ken, inabu daka keng awang, e baling masukul naku." (I will lift you from there and I will throw you out of the window and I dont care if I will go to jail), "Magmalinis ka, ena ka man malinis, garapal ka." "Balamu mansanas kang malutu, pero king kilub ularan ka, tiktak karinat" (You are pretending to be clean and honest yet you are not clean and honest, you are corrupt. You are like red apple, you are worm infested inside and extremely dirty). Villanueva also made a dirty finger to the private respondent. These circumstances prompted Castro to file a criminal case of grave oral defamation and slander by deed against Villanueva. The MCTC ruled in favor of private respondent, RTC and CA also ruled in favor of the PR, with some modifications as to the penalty. ISSUE: WON Villanueva is guilty of grave oral defamation and slander by deed RULING: As to the grave oral defamation; It is our considered view that the slander committed by petitioner can be characterized as slight slander following the doctrine that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the part of the offended party, constitutes only a light felony.31 In fact, to be denied approval of monetization of leave without valid justification, but as an offshoot of a political dissension may have been vexing for petitioner and may have been perceived by him as provocation that triggered him to blow his top and utter those disparaging words. In hindsight, to be denied monetization of leave credits must have stirred upon the petitioner a feeling akin to begging for money that he was legally entitled to. This oppressive conduct on the part of complainant must have scarred petitioners self-esteem, too, to appear as begging for money. But again, this is not an excuse to resort to intemperate language no matter how such embarrassment must have wreaked havoc on his ego. As to the slander by deed; Pointing a dirty finger ordinarily connotes the phrase "Fuck You," which is similar to the expression "Puta" or "Putang Ina mo," in local parlance. Such expression was not held to be libelous in Reyes v. People,38where the Court said that: "This is a common enough expression in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the virtues of a mother." Following Reyes, and in light of the fact that there was a perceived provocation coming from complainant, petitioners act of pointing a dirty finger at complainant constitutes simple slander by deed, it appearing from the factual milieu of the case that the act complained of was employed by petitioner "to express anger or displeasure" at complainant for procrastinating the approval of his leave monetization. While it may have cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon complainant, said act is not of a serious nature. Petitioner is guilty of slight oral defamation and simple slander by deed.

JOSE ALEMANIA BUATIS, JR., Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ATTY. JOSE J. PIERAZ, Respondents. FACTS: Petitioner Buatis sent a reply to the private respondent. Said letter contains remarks addressing the previously sent letter made by the PR to be lousy, senile, inutile and carabao English. It was also contained in the complimentary clause In Satans name. Reacting to the insulting words used by Buatis, Jr., particularly: "Satan, senile, stupid, [E]nglish carabao," Atty. Pieraz filed a complaint for libel against accused-appellant. Subject letter and its contents came to the knowledge not only of his wife but of his children as well and they all chided him telling him: "Ginagawa ka lang gago dito." The defense forwarded by accused-appellant Buatis, Jr. was denial. According to him, it was at the behest of the president of the organization "Nagkakaisang Samahan Ng Mga Taga Manggahan" or NASATAMA, and of a member, Teresita Quingco, that he had dictated to one of his secretaries, a comment to the letter of private-complainant in the second week of August 1995. Petitioner interposed an additional defense that it was a privileged communication and cannot be considered libelous. RTC and CA ruled against the petitioner, convicting him of the crime of libel. ISSUE: WON the petitioner committed the crime of libel RULING: Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable. The last two elements have been duly established by the prosecution. There is publication in this case. In libel, publication means making the defamatory matter, after it is written, known to someone other than the person against whom it has been written. Petitioners subject letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all concerned. Also, petitioner had dictated the letter to his secretary. It is enough that the author of the libel complained of has communicated it to a third person. Furthermore, the letter, when found in the mailbox, was open, not contained in an envelope thus, open to public.The victim of the libelous letter was identifiable as the subject letter-reply was addressed to respondent himself. The words used in the letter dated August 18, 1995 sent by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. In using words such as "lousy", "inutile", "carabao English", "stupidity", and "satan", the letter, as it was written, casts aspersion on the character, integrity and reputation of respondent as a lawyer which exposed him to ridicule. No evidence aliunde need be adduced to prove it. As the CA said, these very words of petitioner have caused respondent to public ridicule as even his own family have told him: "Ginagawa ka lang gago dito." Any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory; and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. Thus, when the imputation is defamatory, the prosecution need not prove malice on the part of petitioner (malice in fact), for the law already presumes that petitioners imputation is malicious (malice in law). A reading of petitioners subject letter-reply showed that he malevolently castigated respondent for writing such a demand letter to Mrs. Quingco. There was nothing in the said letter which showed petitioners good intention and justifiable motive for writing the same in order to overcome the legal inference of malice.

Richard Gutierrez, petitioner vs. Jo-Ann Maglipon, editor in chief of PEP,respondent

FACTS: Actor Richard Gutierrez filed on Monday a P25-million libel complaint at the Makati City Prosecutor's Office against the editor-in-chief of a showbiz website.The lead actor of GMA-7's "Zorro," who arrived past 2 p.m. with hisfamily, claimed that Jo-Ann Maglipon, editor in chief of Philippine Entertainment Portal, and two others, maliciously published an article on March 29 that accused him of being in a gun-toting incident with actor Michael Flores. Gutierrez said that as an endorser of several brands, the article discredited him by portraying him as a "troublemaker" when "no such incident took place."Also named as respondents in the five-page complaint were Karen Pagsolingan, PEP managing editor and Ferdinand Godinez, staff writer.PEP earlier posted an apology on its website, acknowledging its mistake of posting the story on the alleged gun-toting incident without getting the statements of Gutierrez and Flores.6.Maglipon said that Gutierrezs mother and manager, Annabelle Rama, had agreed not to press charges against PEP if they would issue an apologize on the website. Actor Richard Gutierrez has lost his legal battle with Philippine Entertainment Portal (PEP) after the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed the libel suit he filed against the entertainment Web site. ISSUE: WON Maglipon is liable of malicious published articles on PEP website RULING: The Associate Prosecutor Mary Jane Sytat, cited "lack of probable cause" in dismissing Gutierrezs libel complaint against editor-in-chief Jo-Ann Maglipon, managing editor Karen Pagsolingan and writer Ferdinand "Bong" Godinez.2.The resolution acknowledged that PEP committed a lapse when it published a story on the gun-toting incident allegedly involving Gutierrez and fellow actor Michael Flores in March. The article, Gutierrez complained, gave an impression that he was a troublemaker The resolution, however, opposed the actor's argument,maintaining that PEP's "lapse" did not constitute an imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another.No evidence was presented which would prove that a reasonable mind, in this case that of the public or the readers, would believe that complainant was a troublemaker based on the statements in the questioned article, the resolution said. The resolution also pointed out that the complainant failed to prove that the publication of the PEP article was attended with malice. Malice in Fact or Malice as a Fact. -. It is the malice which must be proven by the plaintiff. He must prove the purpose of the accused is to malign or harm or injure his reputation. This arises either because:(i) the article is not defamatory on its face or if libelous it is ambiguous(ii) the accused was able to overcome the presumption of malice.

DOLORES MAGNO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. FACTS: Petitioner Dolores Magno and Cerelito T. Alejandro have been neighbors at Pucay Village, Marcos Highway, Baguio City. The Alejandros, however, can access the highway only by traversing the Magnos property. Thru the years, the Magnos had allowed the Alejandros the use of this passage way until Dolores closed the same sometime in 1991, purportedly in retaliation to certain unsavory allegations made by Cerelito against the Magnos and because of the deteriorating relationship between the two families. Cerelito, while at the upper portion of his house, saw Dolores write on the wall at the back of her garage the following words "Huag Burahin Bawal Dumaan Dito ang Maniac at Magnanakaw ng Aso katulad ni Cere Lito O. Cedring." Feeling that he was the "Cere", "Lito" or "Cedring" being alluded to, Cerelito reported the matter to the local police and filed an affidavit-complaint with the Fiscals Office. Subsequently, or on March 9, 1991, at around 4:00 p.m., Rodelito, Cerelitos 16-year old son, while on his way to buy bread at a nearby store, saw Dolores writing something on her garage's extension wall with the use of a paint brush and red paint. In full, the writing reads: "HUAG BURAHIN BAWAL DUMAAN ANG SUSPETSOSA BASTOS AT MAKAPAL NA MUKHA DITO LALO NA SA MANIAC AT MAGNANAKAW NG ASO KATULAD NI CERELITO." After reading what was thus written, Rodelito proceeded with his errand and, upon reaching home, related what he saw to his father. Again, feeling that he was the maniac and dog thief being referred to, Cerelito lost no time in filing a complaint. Dolores sent a letter to Cerelito, receive by the latters wife, contained therein is an allegedly defamatory statement "IF YOUR HUSBAND CAN'T SHOW ANY PROOF OF HIS MAKATING DILA THEN COMPLY & IF YOUR HUSBAND CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE ENGLISH DAHIL MANGMANG, DAYUKDOK NGA GALING SA ISANG KAHIG ISANG TUKANG PAMILYA AT WALANG PINAG-ARALAN, ILLITERATE, MAL EDUCADO KAYA BASTOS EH HUAG NA NIYA KAMING IDAMAY SA KANIYANG KATANGAHAN NA ALAM NA TRABAHO E HUMAWAK NG GRASA SA SAUDI. KAYA IYONG PAMBABASTOS MO AT PAGDUDUMI NIYA SA PANGALAN NAMIN AT HIGIT PA SIYANG MARUMI AT PUTANG INA RIN NIYA. GALING SIYA SA PUKI NG BABOY AT HINDI PUKI NG TAO, HUAG IKUMPARA ANG PINANGALINGAN NAMIN. SIYA ANG MAGNANAKAW AT MANDARAYA. MALINAW NA IBIDENSIYA IYAN KINALALAGYAN NG HAGDAN NINYO, DI BA LAMPAS KAYO SA LOTE NINYO. PINALAKAD NINYO ANG MOJON PARA LUMAKI ANG LOTE NINYO. BAGO KAYO MAGSALITA MAMBINTANG NG KAPITBAHAY NINYO, TIGNAN NINYO MUNA ANG SARILI NINYO. MAS MUKHA PANG MAGNANAKAW ANG ASAWA MO PARA MALINAW ISSUE: WON the sending of a letter to the wife of the defamed person constitutes publication. RULING: YES,

To be liable for libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be shown to exist: (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. Writing to a person other than the person defamed is sufficient to constitute publication, for the person to whom the letter is addressed is a third person in relation to its writer and the person defamed therein.32 Fe, the wife, is, in context, a third person to whom the publication was made. The Court cannot give credence to Dolores allegation that she is not the author of the unsigned libelous letter. It cannot be overstressed that she herself handed the unsigned letter to Evelyn Arcartado with specific instructions to give the same to Fe Alejandro. Likewise, the contents of the letters are basically reiteration/elaborations of Dolores previous writing on the wall and her letter to the BCP Sub-Station commander. In all, we find all the elements of libel to have been sufficiently established.

FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., petitioner, vs. AGO MEDICAL AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER-BICOL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE FACTS: Expose is a radio documentary program hosted by Carmelo Mel Rima ("Rima") and Hermogenes Jun Alegre ("Alegre"). owned by Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. ("FBNI"). "Expos" is heard over Legazpi City, the Albay municipalities and other Bicol areas. Rima and Alegre exposed various alleged complaints from students, teachers and parents against Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine ("AMEC") and its administrators. Claiming that the broadcasts were defamatory, AMEC and Angelita Ago ("Ago"), as Dean of AMECs College of Medicine, filed a complaint for damages7 against FBNI, Rima and Alegre on 27 February 1990. The alleged defamatory remarks are as follows if you have children taking medical course at AMEC-BCCM, advise them to pass all subjects because if they fail in any subject they will repeat their year level, taking up all subjects including those they have passed already, Earlier AMEC students in Physical Therapy had complained that the course is not recognized by DECS, Students are required to take and pay for the subject even if the subject does not have an instructor - such greed for money on the part of AMECs administration, , the administrators of AMEC-BCCM, AMEC Science High School and the AMEC-Institute of Mass Communication in their effort to minimize expenses in terms of salary are absorbing or continues to accept "rejects". ISSUE: WON the broadcasts made by petitioners are libelous. RULING: A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act or omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. There is no question that the broadcasts were made public and imputed to AMEC defects or circumstances tending to cause it dishonor, discredit and contempt. Rima and Alegres remarks such as "greed for money on the part of AMECs administrators"; "AMEC is a dumping ground, garbage of xxx moral and physical misfits"; and AMEC students who graduate "will be liabilities rather than assets" of the society are libelous per se. Taken as a whole, the broadcasts suggest that AMEC is a money-making institution where physically and morally unfit teachers abound. Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious. Rima and Alegre failed to show adequately their good intention and justifiable motive in airing the supposed gripes of the students. As hosts of a documentary or public affairs program, Rima and Alegre should have presented the public issues "free from inaccurate and misleading information." Hearing the students alleged complaints a month before the expose they had sufficient time to verify their sources and information. However, Rima and Alegre hardly made a thorough investigation of the students alleged gripes. Neither did they inquire about nor confirm the purported irregularities in AMEC from the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Alegre testified that he merely went to AMEC to verify his report from an alleged AMEC official who refused to disclose any information. Alegre simply relied on the words of the students "because they were many and not because there is proof that what they are saying is true." This plainly shows Rima and Alegres reckless disregard of whether their report was true or not. Had the comments been an expression of opinion based on established facts, it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. However, the comments of Rima and Alegre were not backed up by facts. Therefore, the broadcasts are not privileged and remain libelous per se.