VASQUEZ vs CA

Facts: 
Sometime in April 1986, petitioner and some 37 families from Tondo
Foreshore Area went to see then NHA general Manager Lito Atienza
regarding their complaint against their barangay Chairman, Jaime Olmedo.
After the meeting, petitioner and his companions were interviewed by
reporters of the newspaper Ang Tinig ng Masa. The article was published
containing such statements from the petitioner imputing that Olmedo,
through connivance with NHA officials, was able to obtain title to several lots
in the area and that he was involved in illegal activities such as attempted
murder, gambling and stealing. Olmeda filed a complaint for libel.

Issue: 
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of libel

Held: 
Elements of libel under Art. 353 of RPC: (a) 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.
An allegation is defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a
crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or
discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of
one who is dead.

There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person – it is

not required that the person defamed has read or heard about the libelous
remark. In determining the meaning of any publication alleged to be libelous
the words shall be taken in their ordinary sense.

To satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that at least a third

person or stranger was able to identify the defamed person as an object of
the defamatory statement.

Under Art. 361 of RPC, 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 the imputation was published with
good motives and for justifiable ends. 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 is false or with reckless disregard of whether
it was false or not. In this case, petitioner was able to prove his allegation of
land grabbing based on a letter of NHA Inspector General, and the
memoranda of the NHA general manager. With regard to those charge of
involvement in illegal activities there are in fact charges filed, the truth of
which were not in issue.