Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 257 views

    The Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga, V. Hermogenes Reyes and Andres Guevarra G.R. No. L - 35366, August 5, 1931, EN BANC (Villamor, J.) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Tiff Dizon
    The Supreme Court ruled that an information charging libel published in a non-official language need only include a translation of the libelous article, not the original text. It also ruled that copies of the newspaper containing the libelous article and its translation are admissible as evidence as they constitute the best evidence of the libel charged. The Court issued a writ requiring the trial court to admit these exhibits in the libel case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga, V. Hermogenes Reyes and Andres Guevarra G.R. No. L - 35366, August 5, 1931, EN BANC (Villamor, J.) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Tiff Dizon
    257 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that an information charging libel published in a non-official language need only include a translation of the libelous article, not the original text. It also ruled that copies of the newspaper containing the libelous article and its translation are admissible as evidence as they constitute the best evidence of the libel charged. The Court issued a writ requiring the trial court to admit these exhibits in the libel case.

    Original Description:

    m

    Original Title

    26

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that an information charging libel published in a non-official language need only include a translation of the libelous article, not the original text. It also ruled that copies of the newspaper containing the libelous article and its translation are admissible as evidence as they constitute the best evidence of the libel charged. The Court issued a writ requiring the trial court to admit these exhibits in the libel case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    257 views2 pages

    The Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga, V. Hermogenes Reyes and Andres Guevarra G.R. No. L - 35366, August 5, 1931, EN BANC (Villamor, J.) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Tiff Dizon
    The Supreme Court ruled that an information charging libel published in a non-official language need only include a translation of the libelous article, not the original text. It also ruled that copies of the newspaper containing the libelous article and its translation are admissible as evidence as they constitute the best evidence of the libel charged. The Court issued a writ requiring the trial court to admit these exhibits in the libel case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    THE

     PROVINCIAL  FISCAL  OF  PAMPANGA,  v.  HERMOGENES  REYES  and  ANDRES  GUEVARRA
    G.R.  No.  L-­‐35366,  August  5,  1931,  EN  BANC  (Villamor,  J.)
     
    FACTS:  
     
    • The  provincial  fiscal  of  Pampanga  filed  two  informations  for  libel  against  Andres  Guevarra.  
    The  informations  alleged  that  the  defendant,  with  malicious  intent,  published  on  the  weekly  
    paper  Ing  Magumasid  in  its  issue  of  July  13,  1930,  a  squib  in  verse,  of  which  a  translation  into  
    Spanish  was  included  therein,  intended  to  impeach  the  honesty,  integrity,  and  reputation  of  
    Clemente  Dayrit  and  of  Mariano  Nepomuceno.  
     
    • On  trial,  the  fiscal  attempted  to  present  as  evidence  for  the  prosecution  Exhibits  A,  B,  C,  and  D  
    (Exhibits),   which   are   copies   of   the   Ing   Magumasid   containing   the   libelous   article   with   the  
    innuendo,   another   article   in   the   vernacular   published   in   the   same   weekly,   and   its   translation  
    into  Spanish.    

    • Counsel   for   the   defendant   objected   to   this   evidence   arguing   that   the   libelous   articles   were  
    not   quoted   in   the   information.   The   court   sustained   the   objection.   The   prosecution,   then,  
    asked   for   an   amendment   to   the   information,   but   the   court   denied   the   petition   on   the   ground  
    that   it   would   impair   the   rights   of   the   defendant,   holding   that   the   omission   of   the   libelous  
    article  in  the  original  was  fatal  to  the  prosecution.  

    ISSUES:  

    1. WON   an   information   charging   a   libel   published   in   an   unofficial   language,   without  


    including  a  copy  of  the  libelous  article,  but  only  a  translation  into  Spanish,  is  valid
    2. WON the Exhibits are admissible as evidence

    HELD:

    1. The Supreme Court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE

    • The   general   rule   is   that   the   complaint   or   information   for   libel   must   set   out   the   particular  
    defamatory   words   as   published,   and   a   statement   of   their   substance   and   effect   is   usually  
    considered   insufficient.   (US   v   Eguia   and   Lozano)   But   this   general   rule   is   subject   to  
    exceptions,  such  as,  cases  where  the  libel  is  published  in  a  non-­‐official  language.  

    • If  the  libelous  article  had  been  published  in  one  of  our  official  languages,  English  or  Spanish,  
    it   would   have   been   necessary   to   follow   the   general   rule;  but   since   the   article   in   question   was  
    published   in   the   Pampango   dialect,   it   is   sufficient   to   insert   a   Spanish   translation   in   the  
    information.  

    2. The Supreme Court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE

    • The  General  Rule  regarding  the  admissibility  of  evidence:  The  evidence  must  be  relevant,  and  
    not  hearsay.  This  being  so,  the  rule  of  procedure  which  requires  the  production  of  the  best  
    evidence,  is  applicable  to  the  present  case.    
     
    • The   copies   of   the   weekly   where   the   libelous   article   was   published,   and   its   translation,  
    constitute   the   best   evidence   of   the   libel   charged.   The   newspaper   itself   is   the   best   evidence   of  
    an  article  published  in  it.  

    • In   view   of   respondent   judge’s   denial   of   the   Exhibits   -­‐   his   refusal   to   admit   such   evidence  
    amounts  to  an  abuse  of  that  discretion,  which  may  be  controlled  by  this  court  by  means  of  
    mandamus  proceedings.    

    WHEREFORE,  the  writ  prayed  for  against  the  respondent  judge  of  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  
    Pampanga  should  be  issued,  requiring  him  to  admit  Exhibits  A,  B,  C,  and  D,  in  question  in  criminal  
    cases  Nos.  4501  and  4502  of  that  court,  and  it  is  so  ordered,  without  special  pronouncement  of  
    costs.  

    You might also like