So that I won't forget:
Libel as provided under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines is any public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
As lectured in my class, there are three elements of libel: MVP, meaning Malice (may be malice in fact or malice in law), Victim (which must be sufficiently identifiable), and Publication.
For the prosecution, the allegations may either be: presence of Malice in Law or Malice in Fact.
For Malice in Law: This is presumed under the first paragraph of Article 354 of the RPC. It provides "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.
For the defense: This presumption of malice in law can be rebutted by the defense of Privilege Communication, which can be split into two:
(1) Absolutely Privilege Communication: (1.a) if in aid of legislation; or (1.b) if in aid of administration of justice.
(2) Qualifiedly/Conditionally Privilege Communication which is provided under the second paragraph of Article 354: (Code: PriFaCo)
(2.a) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty;
(2.b) A fair ad true report, made in good faith, Without any Comments or Remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
(2.c) Fair comment doctrine - fair comment involving matters of public interest (this last enumeration is an addition enunciated in the case of Borjal vs. CA).
(3) If the article, item, etc. is true and correct, and with good intention and justifiable motive.
Another allegation for the prosecution may be the existence of Malice in Fact. This means that he has knowledge of its falsity or utter or reckless disregard of its falsity.
To buttress this, the defense may invoke: presence of a Factual Basis. This may either involve interviews from reliable sources, research, or interview from the person concerned or even an attempt to do the same.
In the case of Newsweek vs. CA, the SC ruled that there is no libel since the victims, which are 8,500 member-organizations are not sufficiently identifiable. The second element of libel was not met.
In Santos vs. People, the SC held that there was no libel since the alleged libelous article falls under the second paragraph of Article 354 as fair report on matters involving judicial proceedings, without any comments.
In Borjal vs. CA, libel was ruled out since there was no malice in law nor malice in fact (1st element), the victim was not sufficiently identifiable (2nd element), although there was publication (3rd element) the same was privileged falling under the third kind of qualifiedly privilege communication, that is, fair comment on matters of public interest.
Libel as provided under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines is any public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
As lectured in my class, there are three elements of libel: MVP, meaning Malice (may be malice in fact or malice in law), Victim (which must be sufficiently identifiable), and Publication.
For the prosecution, the allegations may either be: presence of Malice in Law or Malice in Fact.
For Malice in Law: This is presumed under the first paragraph of Article 354 of the RPC. It provides "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.
For the defense: This presumption of malice in law can be rebutted by the defense of Privilege Communication, which can be split into two:
(1) Absolutely Privilege Communication: (1.a) if in aid of legislation; or (1.b) if in aid of administration of justice.
(2) Qualifiedly/Conditionally Privilege Communication which is provided under the second paragraph of Article 354: (Code: PriFaCo)
(2.a) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty;
(2.b) A fair ad true report, made in good faith, Without any Comments or Remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
(2.c) Fair comment doctrine - fair comment involving matters of public interest (this last enumeration is an addition enunciated in the case of Borjal vs. CA).
(3) If the article, item, etc. is true and correct, and with good intention and justifiable motive.
Another allegation for the prosecution may be the existence of Malice in Fact. This means that he has knowledge of its falsity or utter or reckless disregard of its falsity.
To buttress this, the defense may invoke: presence of a Factual Basis. This may either involve interviews from reliable sources, research, or interview from the person concerned or even an attempt to do the same.
In the case of Newsweek vs. CA, the SC ruled that there is no libel since the victims, which are 8,500 member-organizations are not sufficiently identifiable. The second element of libel was not met.
In Santos vs. People, the SC held that there was no libel since the alleged libelous article falls under the second paragraph of Article 354 as fair report on matters involving judicial proceedings, without any comments.
In Borjal vs. CA, libel was ruled out since there was no malice in law nor malice in fact (1st element), the victim was not sufficiently identifiable (2nd element), although there was publication (3rd element) the same was privileged falling under the third kind of qualifiedly privilege communication, that is, fair comment on matters of public interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment