When Vic was governor of their province, one of the major political topics discussed in their place concerns certain cash advances against the coffers of the provincial government for his trips abroad accompanied by political supporters and other officials. In fact Vic even went on radio to explain the cash advances and clarify his trips abroad. Despite such explanations and clarifications however, a local weekly newspaper circulated in the region came out with a news item bannered by a headline which says that "Vic’s Denial Convinces No One". The news report was written by Romy, a newspaper correspondent, based on information provided by an employee in the provincial treasurer’s office who had access to the pertinent financial records of the provincial government but whose identity was not divulged by Romy. In gist, the report said that: (1) the two trips of Vic were purely junkets; (2) that the P700,000 withdrawn as cash advances by ranking provincial officials at the instance of Vic, were used for the trips; (3) that the withdrawal was without a resolution approving its release; and (4) that Vic’s entourage did not have official functions in the province.
Alleging that said report was false and utterly untrue as he has not done such acts thus embarrassing, discrediting and ridiculing him before his friends, followers and other people, Vic sued Romy, and the managing editor and editor-publisher of the newspaper for the crime of libel and for damages. According to Vic, the imputation was malicious as it is based on mere conjecture and speculation. Vic added that their decision to publish the unverified information furnished them by an informant who was not presented to testify in court and their failure to verify the truth of the statements indicate malice and so it does not enjoy the mantle of protection afforded by the privileged matter. Was Vic correct?
No. The test of malice as laid down in New York Times vs. Sullivan and reiterated in St Amant vs. Thompson is that there is a reckless disregard for the truth; that the defendants entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the publication. In this case the issue of cash advances and the trips were clearly a legitimate topic to be discussed not merely by members of media but by the public as it involved dispensation of taxpayer’s money. So it cannot be said that the "reckless disregard" test has been met by the prosecution.
The inference drawn from the information furnished them may have been false but the same does not warrant a conviction for libel. It is not to be expected that public journalists will always be infallible. If a writer in course of temperate and legitimate criticism falls into error as to some detail, or draws an incorrect inference from the facts before him, and thus goes beyond the limits of strict truth, such inaccuracies will not cause judgment against him. Besides false statements alone are not actionable; there must be malice in making such false statement which may be shown only through knowledge of falsity and reckless disregard of truth or falsity.
The failure to confirm the information supplied by the unidentified source and to give Vic the chance to air his side before putting the news story to print, does not likewise establish the element of reckless disregard for truth. While substantiation of the facts supplied is an important reporting standard, still, a reporter may rely on information given by a lone source although it reflects only one side of the story provided the reporter does not entertain a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity. The prosecution in this case failed to prove that the defendants entertained such awareness.
The failure to present the informant as well as other evidence to prove Romy’s claim that he had conducted an investigation to verify the information passed on to him should not be taken against them. Placing on the accused the burden of showing the truth of the allegations of official misconduct and/or good motives and justifiable ends for making such allegations would not only be contrary to Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code but would above all infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. It would deter citizens from performing their duties as members of a self-governing community. "Public discussion is a political duty and the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people" (Flor vs. People G.R. 139987, March 31, 2005. 454 SCRA 440).