This case once more reiterates the rule on libel against a public official. The official involved here is the barangay chairman whom we shall call Patricio.
Patricio filed a complaint for libel against Valerio, a leader of his arch political foe, for willfully, unlawfully and maliciously causing the publication of an article entitled "38 Pamilya Inagawan ng Lupa" in "Ang Tinig ng Masa", a daily newspaper sold to the public and of general circulation in the Philippines.
In said article Valerio and other residents in the barangay, stated that, "through connivance with NHA officials, Patricio was able to obtain title to several lots in their barangay and that he was involved in and charged with a number of illegal activities such as attempted murder, gambling and theft of fighting cocks.
The investigating prosecutor found that Valerio's statements in the published article were clearly defamatory so he charged Valerio in court for the crime of libel.
At the trial, Valerio proved that all his alleged defamatory statements were true. He presented the letter of the inspector general of the NHA showing that Patricio indeed was able to obtain title to several lots at their area thru connivance with certain NHA officials, the connivance being shown by two memos of the NHA manager recommending the filing of administrative charges against said NHA officials.
With regard to other imputations against Patricio that he was charged with attempted murder, theft of fighting cocks and gambling, Valerio presented affidavit complaints and resolutions of the Prosecutor regarding said charges.
Nevertheless, the lower court found that Valerio's statements were indeed defamatory so malice can be presumed. It was therefore incumbent upon Valerio to overcome such presumption by showing that the imputations were published with good motives and justifiable ends. But, according to the lower court, Valerio has not overcome said presumption, so he is guitty of libel. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Were the lower court and appellate court correct?
The Supreme Court said they were not correct. Under Art. 361 of the Revised Penal code, 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 that the imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends.
In this case, Valerio was able to prove the truth of his defamatory statements. In denouncing the barangay chairman Patricio, Valerio and other barangay residents were not only acting for their self interest but engaging in the performance of a civic duty to see to it that public duty is discharged faithfully and well by those on whom such duty is incumbent. The recognition of this right and duty of every citizen in a democracy is inconsistent with any requirement placing on him the burden of proving that he acted with good motives and for justifiable ends.
So even if Valerio was actuated by vengeful political motive in uttering said defamatory statements from which malice may be inferred, he should still be acquitted because he has proven the truth of the defamatory matter concerning the performance of official duties.
Furthermore, a rule placing on the accused the burden of showing the truth of allegations of official misconduct and/or of showing good motives and justifiable ends for making such allegations would not only be contrary to Art. 361 of the Revised Penal Code. It would, above all, infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Such a rule would deter citizens from performing their duties as members of a self-govering community. Without free speech and assembly, discussions of our most abiding concerns as a nation would be stifled. "Public discussion is a political duty" and the "greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."
For that matter, 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 that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. In this case the prosecution failed to prove not only that the charges made by Valerio were false but also that Valerio made them with knowledge of the falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they false or not. So Valerio is not guilty of libel (Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. No. 118971 Sept. 15, 1999).
Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: sison@ipaglabanmo.org