Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118971, September 15, 1999

Ponente: MENDOZA J.

Appeal from a decision of the RTC Manila

Facts:

Petitioner Rodolfo R. Vasquez is a resident of the Tondo Foreshore Area. Sometime in April 1986, he and some 37 families from the area went to see then National Housing Authority (NHA) General Manager Lito Atienza regarding their complaint against their Barangay Chairman, Jaime Olmedo, a public official.

After their meeting with Atienza and other NHA officials, Petitioner and his companions were met and interviewed by newspaper reporters at the NHA compound concerning their complaint.

The next day, April 22, 1986, the following excerpts of the news article appeared in the newspaper Ang Tinig ng Masa. In the article, published were supposed allegations by Vasquez that (1) “nakipagsabwatan umano si Chairman Jaime Olmedo upang makamkam ang may 14 na lote ng lupa”; (2) ang mga lupa ay ilegal na patituluhan, nagawa ito ni Olmedo sa pakikipagsabwatan sa mga project manager at legal officers ng NHA; (3) kasangkot din umano si Olmedo sa mga ilegal na pasugalan sa naturang lugar at maging sa mga nakawan ng manok.”

Based on the newspaper article, Olmedo filed a complaint for libel against Petitioner alleging that the latter’s statements cast aspersions on him and damaged his reputation.

On May 28, 1992, the trial court rendered judgment finding Petitioner guilty of libel and sentencing him to pay a fine of P1,000.00. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto. Hence, this petition for review.

---------------------------------------------------- 

WON the Petitioner Vasquez is guilty of libel

Held: No.

(1) To find a person guilty of libel under Article 353 of the RPC, 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. Last one is absent.

(2) Under A361, if the defamatory statement is made against a public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the allegation is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends.

In this case, Petitioner was able to prove the truth of his charges against the barangay official.

In denouncing the barangay chairman in this case, Petitioner and the other residents were engaging in the performance of a civic duty to see to it that public duty is discharged faithfully. The recognition of this right and duty of every citizen in a democracy is inconsistent with any requirement placing on him the burden of proving that he acted with good motives and for justifiable ends.

For that matter, even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. New York Times v. Sullivan

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove not only that the charges made by petitioner were false but also that petitioner made them with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.

A rule placing on the accused the burden of showing the truth of allegations of official misconduct and/or good motives and justifiable ends for making such allegations would not only be contrary to A361 of the RPC. It would, above all, infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.

Note: Libel was used as a form of harassment:

Instead of the claim that petitioner was politically motivated in making the charges against complainant, it would appear that complainant filed this case to harass petitioner.

It is curious that the ones most obviously responsible for the publication of the allegedly offensive news report, namely, the editorial staff and the periodical itself, were not at all impleaded. The charge was leveled against the petitioner and, "curiouser" still, his clients who have nothing to do with the editorial policies of the newspaper.

DECISION: decision of the CA is REVERSED and the Petitioner Vasquez is ACQUITTED.