FREEDOMOFEXPRESSION

RodolfoR.Vasquezv.CourtofAppeals
G.R.No.118971,September15,1999
FACTS:SometimeinApril1986,petitionerandsome37familiesfromTondoForeshore
Area went to see then NHAgeneral ManagerLito Atienza regarding
theircomplaintagainst their barangay Chairman, Jaime Olmedo. After the meeting,
petitionerandhiscompanionswereinterviewedbyreportersofthenewspaperAngTinig
ng Masa. The articlewas publishedcontaining suchstatementsfrom the petitioner
imputingthatOlmedo,throughconnivancewithNHAofficials,wasabletoobtaintitleto
severallotsintheareaandthathewasinvolvedinillegalactivitiessuchasattempted
murder,gamblingandstealing.Olmedafiledacomplaintforlibel.
ISSUE:WONthepetitionerisguiltyoflibel
RULING:NO.
ElementsoflibelunderArt.353ofRPC:(a)allegationofadiscreditableactor
conditionconcerninganother;(b)publicationofthecharge;(c)identityoftheperson
defamed;and(d)existenceofmalice.
Anallegationisdefamatoryifitascribestoapersonthecommissionofacrime,
thepossessionofaviceordefect,realorimaginary,oranyact,omission,condition,
statusorcircumstancewhichtendstodishonorordiscreditorputhimincontempt,or
whichtendstoblackenthememoryofonewhoisdead.
Thereispublicationifthematerialiscommunicatedtoathirdpersonitisnot
required that the person defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. In
determiningthemeaningofanypublicationallegedtobelibelousthewordsshallbe
takenintheirordinarysense.
Tosatisfytheelementofidentifiability,itmustbeshownthatatleastathirdpersonor
stranger was able to identify the defamed person as an object of the defamatory
statement.
UnderArt.361ofRPC,ifthedefamatorystatementismadeagainstapublic
officialwithrespecttothedischargeofhisofficialdutiesandfunctionsandthetruthof
theallegationisshown,theaccusedwillbeentitledtoanacquittaleventhoughhedoes
notprovetheimputationwaspublishedwithgoodmotivesandforjustifiableends.Even
ifthedefamatorystatementisfalse,noliabilitycanattachifitrelatestoofficialconduct,
unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual
malicethatiswithknowledgeisfalseorwithrecklessdisregardofwhetheritwasfalse
ornot.Inthiscase,petitionerwasabletoprovehisallegationoflandgrabbingbasedona
letterofNHAInspectorGeneral,andthememorandaoftheNHAgeneralmanager.With
regardtothosechargeofinvolvementinillegalactivitiesthereareinfactchargesfiled,
thetruthofwhichwerenotinissue.
In denouncing the barangay chairman in this case, petitioner and the other
residentsoftheTondoForeshoreAreawerenotonlyactingintheirselfinterestbut

engagingintheperformanceofacivicdutytoseetoitthatpublicdutyisdischarged
faithfullyandwellbythoseonwhomsuchdutyisincumbent.Therecognitionofthis
right and duty of every citizen in a democracy is inconsistent with any requirement
placingonhimtheburdenofprovingthatheactedwithgoodmotivesandforjustifiable
ends.
Forthatmatter,evenifthedefamatorystatementisfalse,noliabilitycanattachif
itrelatestoofficialconduct,unlessthepublicofficialconcernedprovesthatthestatement
wasmadewithactualmalice34thatis,withknowledgethatitwasfalseorwithreckless
disregardofwhetheritwasfalseornot.Thisisthegistoftherulinginthelandmarkcase
ofNewYorkTimesv.Sullivan,whichthisCourthascitedwithapprovalinseveralofits
owndecisions.Thisistheruleofactualmalice.Inthiscase,theprosecutionfailedto
provenotonlythatthechargesmadebypetitionerwerefalsebutalsothatpetitioner
madethemwithknowledgeoftheirfalsityorwithrecklessdisregardofwhetherthey
werefalseornot.
Aruleplacingontheaccusedtheburdenofshowingthetruthofallegationsof
officialmisconductand/orgoodmotivesandjustifiableendsformakingsuchallegations
wouldnotonlybecontrarytoArt.361oftheRevisedPenalCode.Itwould,aboveall,
infringeontheconstitutionallyguaranteedfreedomofexpression.Sucharulewould
detercitizensfromperformingtheirdutiesasmembersofaselfgoverningcommunity.
Withoutfreespeechandassembly,discussionsofourmostabidingconcernsasanation
wouldbestifled.AsJusticeBrandeishassaid,publicdiscussionisapoliticaldutyand
thegreatestmenacetofreedomisaninertpeople.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the
petitionerisACQUITTEDofthecrimecharged.