05/07/2023
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ก๐ง๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ฅ ๐๐๐๐๐
Tulfo v. People of the Philippines and Atty. Carlos So, G.R. No. 187113, January 11, 2021
Ponente, Justice Leonen
In sustaining a conviction for libel, the prosecution must prove the existence of four elements:
(๐)๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ฒ๐ด๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฎ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฎ๐ป๐ผ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ.
Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code provides that an allegation is considered defamatory if:
โit 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.โ
Further, 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.
Insulting words are not actionable as libel per se, and a consequent personal embarrassment does not mean this is automatically equivalent to defamation. The court must still be satisfied that, from the entirety of the impugned writing, it is defamatory.
(๐ฏ)๐ฃ๐๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ด๐ฒ.
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. What is material is that a third person has read or heard the libelous statement, for "a man's reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself."
(๐ฐ) ๐๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ผ๐ป ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฑ.
To satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that at least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the defamatory statement.
(๐ฑ) ๐๐
๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐บ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ.
Malice exists when the prosecution proves that the author made the defamatory statement knowing it was false, or even if true, there is no showing of good intention and justifiable motive. It "implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm" and exists when "the offender is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty, but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed."
The requisite of malice has evolved, there being a distinction between libel cases involving private persons and those involving public officers and public figures. Thus, whether the complainant is a private or public person is a factor that must be considered.
