People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Santos, Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa, and Rappler, Inc.

Criminal Case No. R-MNL-19-01141-CR, for online libel under Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No.
10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

FACTS:

“That on or about 19 February 2014, the above named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly re-publish an article entitled “CJ Using SUVs of Controversial Businessman”
quoted hereunder: “Shady past? At the time we were tracing the registered owner of the Chevrolet in
early 2011, we got hold of an intelligence report that detailed Keng’s past. Prepared in 2002, it
described Keng as a “naturalized Filipino citizen” whose exact birthdate is unknown. In the report, he
was also identified as bearing the alias “Willy,” using a surname also spelled as “Kheng.” The report
stated that Keng had been under surveillance by the National Security Council for alleged
involvement in illegal activities, namely “human trafficking and drug smuggling.” He is supposedly
close to lawmakers and had contacts with the US embassy at the time. The document also said Keng
was involved in a murder case for which he was “never jailed.” It could be referring to the death of
Manila Councilor Chika Go in 2002 where Keng had been identified as a mastermind. Go was also
the architect of Keng’s Reina Regente condominium residence in Binondo, Manila.According to a 2002
Philippine Star report, Keng was also accused of smuggling fake cigarettes and granting special
investors residence visas to Chinese nationals for a fee. Keng has denied his involvement in this illegal
transaction, saying it’s easy to get visas to the Philippines.” in the website of Rappler, Inc. with
malicious intent and evil motive of attacking, injuring and impeaching the reputation of one Wilfredo
D. Keng, with residence at Carriedo Street, Manila, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, as
a businessman, and as a private citizen, thereby exposing him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule,
discredit and dishonor. On 14 May 2019, both Accused Reynaldo Santos, Jr. and Maria Angelita
Ressa were arraigned, assisted by their counsel de parte, Atty. Theodore O. Te of the Free Legal
Assistance Group. Both accused refused to enter a plea. Thus, the Court entered separate pleas
of not guilty for each of the accused.
RULING OF THE COURT

After a careful evaluation of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense,
the Court finds the prosecution’s evidence sufficient in establishing the guilt of both Accused
Reynaldo Santos, Jr. and Maria Ressa beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 4(c)(4) of
Republic Act No. 10175.

In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the presence of all the elements of
cyberlibel.
FIRST ELEMENT: Discreditable act or condition concerning another

As to the first requisite, the Court finds the subject article defamatory. An allegation is
considered 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. In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be
construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as
they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were
used and understood in another sense. Moreover, a charge is sufficient if the words are
calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against
whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their
honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule.

SECOND ELEMENT: Publication of the charge

The element of publication is likewise established 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. In this case, both the prosecution and the defense stipulated
that the subject article was published in the website of Rappler, Inc. on 29 May 2012 and was
updated on 19 February 2014.

THIRD ELEMENT: Identity of the person defamed

With respect to the third element, there is no doubt that the article was referring to Wilfredo
Keng as he was particularly named therein. Moreover, the corporations mentioned in the article
(i.e., Century Peak Metals Holdings Corp, Century Hua Guang Smelting Inc., and Colony
Investors Inc., among others) were the same corporations to which keng is or became the
president. Thus, there is no doubt that the identity of the Keng was established in this case.

FOURTH ELEMENT: Existence of malice

The element of malice is, likewise, present in this case. Malice connotes ill will or spite and
speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and
implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. It is present when it is shown that the
author of the libelous remarks made such remarks with knowledge that it was false or with
reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof.

FIFTH ELEMENT: Committed through a computer system

MANILA BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION AND RUTHER BATUIGAS,

Petitioner Ruther D. Batuigas (Batuigas) was a writer of the widely circulated tabloid Tempo,
published by the Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation (Manila Bulletin).On 20 December 1990,
Batuigas wrote an article in his Bull's Eye column in Tempo titled "Crucial task for JoeCon's
successor." The article dealt with the letter-complaint of the Waray employees of the Department of
Trade and Industry (DTI), Region VIII on the "[m]ismanagement, low moral[e], improper decorum,
gross inefficiency, nepotism, etc." in the office. One of the public officials complained of was
petitioner Regional Director Victor Domingo (Domingo) who was accused of dereliction of official
duties, among others.[4] The "JoeCon" referred to was the outgoing DTI Secretary, Jose
Concepcion.On 4 January 1991, Batuigas wrote in his column titled "A challenge to Sec. Garrucho"
about the alleged "lousy performance of Regional Director R.D. Domingo in DTI Region 8," among
others.[5] Peter Garrucho was the newly appointed DTI Secretary who took over from Jose
Concepcion.Offended by these two articles, Domingo filed, on 18 January 1991, a complaint for libel
against. Batuigas before the Provincial Prosecutor of Palo, Leyte.
On 7 February 1991, Domingo likewise filed a complaint for Damages before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Palo, Leyte, against Batuigas and the Manila Bulletin. The complaint, docketed as
Civil Case No. 91-02-23, was raffled to the RTC, Branch 6, Palo, Leyte.[7]On 18 March 1991, the
Provincial Prosecutor terminated the preliminary investigation with the filing of an Information for
Libel[8] against Batuigas
Domingo stated that his friends who knew him well knew that the articles were fabrications; those
who did not know him that well would think him guilty of these charges, some of whom made
hurtful comments. He quantified the mental anguish, sleepless nights, and wounded feelings that he
suffered as a result of the false and malicious charges against him by Batuigas in the amount of P2
million. He asked that he be paid P1 million and P500,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages,
respectively. He claimed to have paid P10,000.00 as filing fee for his complaint against Batuigas and
that he agreed to pay his lawyer P200.00 per appearance.[44]Domingo claimed that after his
exoneration by the CSC no other charges were filed against him before any court or body. On the
complaint of immorality, similar charges were filed against him but these were also dismissed
Batuigas took the witness stand for his defense. As the chief reporter and a columnist of Tempo, he
described his work as an expose, a product of investigative work. He claimed that he exposes
anomalies and other shenanigans in the government and even of private individuals in the hope that
corruption in the government might be minimized. As a result of his exposes, he was able to cause
the dismissal of some officials in the government, although cases were also filed against him by
officials of the government. At the time he testified, he had not been convicted in any of the cases
filed against him.[49]He stated that he met Domingo for the first time during the previous hearing of
the cases. He only came to know of Domingo when he received several letters of complaint against
the Regional Director. He presumed that the copies of the complaints were those filed against
Domingo before the CSC and the Office of the Ombudsman. Thus, he wrote the questioned articles
because he found the complaints to be of public interest as these involved the shenanigans committed
by Domingo in his office. He no longer had copies of the complaints claiming he lost these when he
left the Manila Bulletin.

Ruling:
The Court cannot sustain the findings of the RTC and the CA that this article was libelous. Viewed in
its entirety, the article withholds the finding that it impeaches the virtue, credit, and reputation of
Domingo. The article was but a fair and true report by Batuigas based on the documents received by
him and thus exempts him from criminal liability under Art. 354(2) of the RPC
The article cannot be considered as defamatory because Batuigas had not ascribed to Domingo the
commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, or any act or omission, condition, status or
circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit the latter. The article, was merely a factual report
which, to stress, were based on the letter of the Waray employees reiterating their earlier complaints
against Domingo and other co-workers at the DTI Region VIII. "Where the words imputed, [are] not
defamatory in character, a libel charge will not prosper. Malice is necessarily rendered immaterial.

[ G.R. No. 230299. April 26, 2023 ]

JANNECE C. PEÑALOSA, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE A. OCAMPO, JR., RESPONDENT.

Facts:

That on August 3 2011, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously,
with malice, compose prepare and post for circulation and dissemination in her facebook account, the
following, to wit:

"hoy arkitektong bobo kumain ka para di kalawangin ang utak mong ipis!
grabe my kakamatay lng na tatay nakuha pang magreklamo kung saan san!!! Make yourself bc naman
pls!
grabe naman utusan m ung asawa m na magretire ng makalasap naman ng masarap na buhay at pagkain
mga hampas lupa!
ung totoo nasa patay o nasa barangay para magreklamo. Try m kayo lumaban ng lalake sa lalake.
sino pa ba tatay ni jojo ocampo supot! Daming reklamo sa bahay namen kse walang pangpagawa eh.
supot pls paki sabi sa tatay mong supot manahimik na lang at magjogging na lang twing umaga!!!
lam ko mahirap buhay ngaun pero wag nyo naman pa mukha sa mga taga ayala na patay gutom kayo!!!
tangina kse tatay ni jo ang daming reklamo sa bahay namen. Inggit kse di makapag pagawa ng balay eh."
with intent to impute upon the person of JOSE A. OCAMPO, JR. vices or defects, whether real or
imaginary, and made for no other purpose than to convey, as they did convey to all those whoever read
then that said JOSE A. OCAMPO, JR. is brainless disrespectful of his deceased father, lazy, a vagabond, a
coward, uncircumsized a beggar and an envious person, thereby exposing him to public ridicule, casting
dishonor, discredit or contempt upon his person, to his damage and prejudice.

Ruling:

it is apparent from the reading of the subject Information that the very alleged libelous statements
posted of the subject information that the very alleged libelous statements posted in accused's
Facebook account on August 3, 2011 constitutes Internet Libel. However, the crucial fact is, on August 3,
2011, the date when the offense charged was allegedly committed, there is no law yet penalizing
Internet Libel considering that Internet Libel became punishable only with the enactment of Republic
Act No. 10175 "An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing for the Prevention, Investigation, Suppression and
the Imposition of Penalties Therefor and for Other Purposes." Said law was approved on September 12,
2012 and came to effectivity fifteen (15) days from the completion of its publication in at least two (2)
papers of general circulation. The alleged date of commission in the Information as already mentioned
by the court is August 3, 2011. Clearly then the accused could not have committed the internet libel
crime on August 3, 2011 as there is no statute defining and penalizing internet or online libel on said
date.

G.R. No. 159787 May 25, 2007

OGIE DIAZ, Petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Fact:

That on or about December 28, 1991, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused being then the
Managing Editor and writer, respectively of Bandera, a newspaper of general circulation, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping each other, with the malicious purpose of impeaching the
integrity, honor and reputation of one FLORINDA BAGAY, and with the evident intent of exposing her to
public interest, hatred, contempt, and ridicule, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
write and publish, or cause to be written and published in the movie section of said newspaper an article
which reads in part as follows:
Ilang beses na nakaladkad ang pangalan ng isang Miss S sa buhay ni Philip Henson ang lalaking mahilig
makipagsex sa asawa. Nasulat na sa ibang tabloid na limang beses diumanong ginalaw ni Philip ang
babaing kine-claim na "nabuntis ako ni Philip." Dahil sa pahayag na yon ay nagpaliwanang at nagbigay pa
ng detalye si Philip. Nagpa-interbyu siya sa ilang piling reporters.
At muli, babanggitin lang namin ang kanyang mga pahayag tungkol sa pagkakasangkot niya sa buhay ni
Miss S.
Inamin ni Philip na limang beses niyang ginalaw si Miss S. Pero hindi ko pinasok ang akin sa ano niya
dahil siya rin ang may ayaw.
Ang sabi niya kasi sa akin, isa siyang malinis na babae at hindi siya basta-basta nagpapaganuon. So ang
ginawa namin, ipit method.
Yung ipitin niya iyong akin sa dalawa niyang hita kunwari sa ano niya nakapasok habang nagpa-pump
ako.
Siya pa nga ang nagturo sa akin ng iba’t ibang posisyon, e yung helicopter at saka ang galing niyang
bumlow job. Sanay na sanay siya.
Kahit itanong nyo pa kay Ray Ravelo. Nagalaw din siya ni Rey, pahayag ni Philip at kami mismo ang
nakarining ng mga linyang iyon sa isa naming pag-uusap sa Jaloux Disco.
In which words and phrases, which were used by many people, the said accused meant and intended to
convey as in fact, they meant and conveyed false and malicious imputations that the said Florinda Bagay
is a sexual pervert and possesses lascivious and immoral habits, the accused well knowing that said
imputations are devoid of truth and without foundation in fact whatsoever, highly libelous and offensive
to the good name, character, and reputation of the said Florinda Bagay.

Ruling:

the Court finds both accused Manny Pichel and Ogie Diaz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
libel, defined in Article 353 and penalized under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
hereby sentences each of them to suffer an indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY
as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS AND TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correcional in its Minimum and
Medium Periods, as maximum and to pay a fine of P3,000.00 each.

We find the first element present. In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used
are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as
they would naturally be understood by the persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used
and understood in another sense.3 In the instant case, the article in question details the sexual activities
of a certain "Miss S" and one "Philip Henson" who had a romantic liaison. In their ordinary sense, the
words used cast aspersion upon the character, integrity, and reputation of "Miss S." The words convey
that "Miss S" is a sexual libertine with unusually wanton proclivities in the bedroom. In a society such as
ours, where modesty is still highly prized among young ladies, the behavior attributed to "Miss S" by the
article in question had besmirched both her character and reputation.

As to the element of malice, we find that since on its face the article is defamatory, there is a
presumption that the offender acted with malice. In Article 354 of the same Code, 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. There is malice when the author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or
spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to
have been defamed.4 We agree with the Court of Appeals that there was neither good reason nor
motive why the subject article was written except to embarrass "Miss S" and injure her reputation.

On the element of publication, there can be no question that the article appeared in the December 28,
1991 issue of Bandera, a local tabloid.

The last element of libel is that the victim is identified or identifiable from the contents of the libelous
article. In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not
necessary that the person be named. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent or if
the publication contains matters of description or reference to facts and circumstances from which
others reading the article may know the person alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by extraneous
circumstances so that those knowing such person could and did understand that he was the person
referred to.5 Kunkle v. Cablenews-American and Lyons6 laid the rule that this requirement is complied
with where a third person recognized or could identify the party vilified in the article.