THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219593. February 20, 2019.]
JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES (RET.), petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SEVENTH DIVISION; MICHAEL VISTAN y TOLENTINO; AND RUBEN TOLENTINO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 20, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219593 (Judge Adoracion G. Angeles (Ret.), petitioner, v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, former Seventh Division; Michael Vistan y Tolentino; and Ruben Tolentino, respondents.) — In criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private offended party is limited to the civil liability arising from them. 1 The private offended party cannot question the dismissal of a criminal case before the Court of Appeals or this Court without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General. However, he or she may file a special civil action for certiorari in his or her own name, "but only to the end of preserving his [or her] interest in the civil aspect of the case." 2
This is a Petition for Certiorari 3 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking a review and reversal of the March 17, 2015 Decision 4 and June 18, 2015 Resolution 5 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33418, which acquitted Michael Vistan y Tolentino (Michael) and Ruben Tolentino (Ruben) of the crime of libel.
On September 7, 2000, Michael and Ruben were charged with libel under two (2) separate informations, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 00-1577
That on or about the 10th day of July, 1999, in Pasay City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to cast dishonor, discredit, and contempt upon the person of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, moved by resentment and hatred which he entertained against the latter, with malice and in public, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, impute upon said Judge Adoracion G. Angeles the commission of a crime, or of a vice or defect, by uttering, in the course of his interview at the Magandang Gabi Bayan, program of the ABS-CBN Television Network, which was aired and seen by the televiewers, the following words, to wit: DETACa
"Pinapalo siya, kinukurot siya, ganoon, tapos sinasabunutan siya kahit maliit na bagay lang . . .
Hinahanap ho si (Adela). Nagbasag ng bote, naghahamon kung sino ang lalaban, sinampal ako at talagang akala mo handa siyang pumatay ng tao. Nagbanta na uubusin niya ang kabuhayan niya makulong lang ako.
Hindi ko pinilit, tinakot, pinayuhan, sinulsulan ng kahit ano si (Adela). Siguro kahit na anong sulsol ko dito kay (Adela), hindi sasama sa akin ito kung masarap ang buhay nito kay Judge."
to the great embarrassment of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, and to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Law.
Criminal Case No. 00-1578
That on or about the 10th day of July, 1999, in Pasay City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to cast dishonor, discredit, and contempt upon the person of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, moved by resentment and hatred which he entertained against the latter, with malice and in public, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, impute upon said Judge Adoracion G. Angeles the commission of a crime, or of a vice or defect, by uttering, in the course of his interview at the Magandang Gabi Bayan, program of the ABS-CBN Television Network, which was aired and seen by the televiewers, the following words, to wit:
"Pagkaupong-pagkaupo ni Judge Angeles ay nagtatalak na iyan, e. Si (Adela) daw ay nasaan, kinidnap daw ni Michael, ganyan ganyan. Sabi ko tinanggap ko siya nang mahusay, parang hindi nag-aral. Sabi niya kapag hindi nakuha si (Adela) sa gabing iyon, lahat madadamay."
to the great embarrassment of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, and to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Law. 6
Upon arraignment, Michael and Ruben pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. 7
The prosecution's version of the events is as follows:
Sometime in April 1990, Leonila Vistan (Leonila) entrusted her four (4)-year-old granddaughter, Maria Mercedes Vistan (Maria) to the care and custody of her sister, Judge Adoracion G. Angeles (Judge Angeles). 8
Judge Angeles' nephew, Pedro Vistan (Pedro) was the father of Maria and Michael. Michael was the half-brother of Maria. 9
Ruben, on the other hand, was the husband of Lourdes Tolentino (Lourdes), Maria's maternal aunt. 10
On April 12, 1999, Maria left the house of Judge Angeles. 11
Judge Angeles testified during trial that on April 11, 1999, she got mad at Michael for his failure to do an errand for her. She told him that she would cut off all her financial assistance to him. 12 In retaliation, Michael took and induced Maria to leave Judge Angeles. 13
When Judge Angeles failed to find and recover Maria, she filed a kidnapping case against Michael, 14 Ruben, 15 Lourdes, and their other relatives. 16
Judge Angeles treated Maria as her own daughter, even introducing the latter to her friends. She provided for all her needs including education and special classes such as ballet and piano lessons. 17 aDSIHc
Meanwhile, Inez Francisco (Francisco), a friend of Judge Angeles, testified that she knew Judge Angeles very well and considered her as part of her family. 18
On the day Maria left, she went with Judge Angeles to look for Maria at the house of Leonila located at Tabang, Bulacan. Thereafter, they went to the house of Ruben at Hagonoy, Bulacan. 19 On their way to Hagonoy, they dropped by at the Criminal Investigation and Detention Group and the Criminal Investigation Section of the local police station. 20
Accompanied by Criminal Investigation and Detention Group operatives and the local police from Hagonoy, they proceeded to Ruben's house. 21 While there, Judge Angeles maintained her cool. She was even crying, begging Ruben to show her Maria for her peace of mind. 22
Francisco testified that Michael and Ruben uttered the statements included in the Informations during their interview in the television program Magandang Gabi Bayan because Judge Angeles filed a kidnapping case against them.
Francisco maintained that they were allegedly trying to convince Judge Angeles to drop the kidnapping case against them. 23
According to the prosecution, after the Magandang Gabi Bayan episode, people started calling Judge Angeles two-faced and a child abuser. One time, when she and Francisco went to the market, the vendors asked Judge Angeles if she was the judge they had seen on television. They questioned her authority to dispense justice when she herself was an abuser. 24
On the other hand, the defense stated that when Maria was staying with Judge Angeles, the latter "would slap her, pull her hair, punch her lips until [they] bleeds (sic), pinch her hips, and curse her and her deceased mother[.]" 25
When Maria could no longer endure the physical, psychological, and emotional sufferings being inflicted upon her, she asked Michael to get her from the custody of Judge Angeles. 26
Feeling sorry for her sister and upon the instruction of their grandmother Leonila, Michael took Maria and brought her to their hometown in Hagonoy, Bulacan. 27
When Judge Angeles discovered that Maria was gone, she hurriedly proceeded with her friend Francisco to Hagonoy, Bulacan to look for Maria. Accompanied by police officers, they passed by the house of Ruben, who politely accepted them in his house. 28
Upon taking her seat at Ruben's living room, Judge Angeles angrily asked Maria's whereabouts. Before leaving, she uttered that if Maria could not be recovered that night, everyone would be involved. 29
Afraid of Judge Angeles, Maria refused to see her. She also filed a criminal complaint for Child Abuse against Judge Angeles. 30
When the complaint for child abuse came to the knowledge of the staff of the television program Magandang Gabi Bayan of ABS-CBN, they decided to tape and produce an episode about it entitled "Your Honor, Guilty or Not Guilty — Child Abuse. " 31
On April 15, 1999, Michael and Ruben were interviewed by Magandang Gabi Bayan. 32 The interview was to be aired on July 10, 1999. 33
Thereafter, Judge Angeles' picture was flashed on television as a preview to the episode "Your Honor, Guilty or Not Guilty — Child Abuse" of Magandang Gabi Bayan. When she saw the preview, she wrote to ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs Director Danny Buenafe to prevent the airing of the episode. When her request went unheeded, Judge Angeles went to ABS-CBN and asked Henry Omaga Diaz (Diaz) to stop the segment from airing. Diaz answered that he could not do that because he was not connected with Magandang Gabi Bayan. 34
On July 10, 1999, the Magandang Gabi Bayan episode entitled "Your Honor, Guilty or Not Guilty — Child Abuse" was aired on television. Judge Angeles was portrayed as a child abuser of Maria, who was referred to in the program as Adela. 35
In the said program, Michael and Ruben uttered the following statements:
Michael:
"Pinapalo siya, kinukurot siya, ganoon, tapos sinasabunutan kahit maliit na bagay lang. . . . ETHIDa
Hinahanap ho si (Adela). Nagbasag ng bote, naghahamon kung sino ang lalaban, sinampal ako at talagang akala mo handa siyang pumatay ng tao. Nagbanta na uubusin niya ang kabuhayan niya makulong lang ako.
Hindi ko pinilit, tinakot, pinayuhan, sinulsulan ng kahit ano si Adela. Siguro kahit na anong sulsol ko dito kay Adela, hindi sasama sa akin ito kung masarap ang buhay nito kay Judge."
Ruben:
"Pagkaupong-pagkaupo ni Judge Angeles ay nagtatalak na iyan, e. Si Adela daw ay nasaan, kinidnap daw ni Michael, ganyan ganyan. Sabi ko tinanggap ko siya [na]ng mahusay, pag hindi nakuha si Adela sa gabing iyon, lahat madadamay." 36
On May 26, 2010, the Regional Trial Court convicted 37 Michael and Ruben of the crime of libel. The dispositive portion of its Decision read:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the Court finds the accused, Michael Vistan y Tolentino, in Criminal Case No. 00-1577, and Ruben Tolentino in Criminal Case No. 00-1578, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of libel defined under Article 353 and penalized under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, they are hereby sentenced to pay a FINE of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) each, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Further, they are hereby ordered to pay complainant, Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) each as moral damages.
Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 38
Both Michael and Ruben appealed before the Court of Appeals. 39
Judge Angeles filed a Motion for Inhibition, 40 seeking the inhibition of the Chairman and Members of the 11th Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila, namely, Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz (Associate Justice Cruz), Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, and Magdangal M. De Leon.
On December 26, 2012, the Court of Appeals resolved to treat Judge Angeles' motion as a mere scrap of paper. 41 It ruled that in all criminal proceedings, only the Office of the Solicitor General can represent the government or the People of the Philippines before the Court of Appeals. Therefore, Judge Angeles lacked the personality or legal standing to file the Motion for Inhibition. 42
In its March 17, 2015 Decision, 43 the Court of Appeals acquitted Michael and Ruben. It ruled that the Regional Trial Court lacked jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, the proceedings before the Regional Trial Court, including its decision, are all null and void. 44 The pertinent portions of this Decision read:
In the instant case, the offended party was a public officer at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. She was a judge in Caloocan City, hence, pursuant to the above-quoted provision of law, she should have instituted the instant criminal case in Caloocan City.
In the alternative, private complainant should have instituted the instant case in Quezon City, where the alleged libelous material/statement was first "published."
However, private complainant filed the instant criminal case in Pasay City alleging that since the TV program was simultaneously aired nationwide, the criminal case for libel may be instituted anywhere in the Philippines, including Pasay City. cSEDTC
We are not persuaded.
xxx xxx xxx
Prior to the telecast of the TV program MGB, the video of the said interview underwent filtering, editing, dubbing and other technical process where it passed to different people in charge of the preparation process. Needless to say, they were the first to be informed of the contents of the proposed segment of MGB, including the defamatory remarks made by the accused-appellant and it was only after the telecast of the said program that the televiewers, the public, learned the same. 45
The Court of Appeals further ruled that assuming that the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City had jurisdiction over the case, Michael and Ruben should still be acquitted. In ruling this, it found that the element of malice was wanting. It noted that Michael and Ruben uttered their testimonies in good faith and in defense of Maria. It ruled that all these negate the existence of malice. 46
Judge Angeles, 47 and Michael and Ruben separately moved for reconsideration. 48
On June 18, 2015, both motions were denied by the Court of Appeals. 49 Hence, Judge Angeles filed before this Court this Petition for Certiorari50 on August 25, 2015.
Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court and acquitted private respondents of the crime of libel. 51
Petitioner asserts that the ruling of public respondent Court of Appeals on the absence of malice as an element of the crime of libel is indicative of its relentless efforts in exonerating private respondents of the crime charged. She argues that the refusal of the ponente and of the chairman of the division to inhibit from the case despite the existence of just grounds for it clearly indicates "prejudice, bias, and partiality to . . . private respondents[.]" 52
Private respondents, on the other hand, contend that petitioner has no legal standing to file the present petition. They argue that once a criminal case has been filed in court, the complainant, in this case Judge Angeles, becomes a mere witness only for the State. 53
On April 6, 2016, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment, 54 submitting that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in acquitting private respondents since the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. Thus, the proceedings there and the decision it rendered are null and void. 55
During the pendency of this case, private respondent Michael died. 56
Thus, for this Court's resolution are the following issues:
First, whether or not petitioner Judge Adoracion G. Angeles has the legal standing to file the present Petition; and
Second, whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court and in acquitting private respondents Michael Vistan and Ruben Tolentino.
The Petition has no merit.
I
Settled is the rule that "[i]n criminal actions brought before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the State is solely vested in the [Office of the Solicitor General]." 57 As elucidated in People v. Santiago: 58
It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal.However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.
In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in name of said complainant. 59 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) SDAaTC
Clearly, in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private offended party is limited to the civil liability arising from them. 60 Thus, if a criminal case is dismissed or if the accused is acquitted, it is only the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People of the Philippines, that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect of the case. 61 Nevertheless, the private offended party may file an appeal or a special civil action for certiorari even without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General, "but only to the end of preserving his [or her] interest in the civil aspect of the case." 62
Here, petitioner filed the present petition not merely to assail the civil aspect of the case but to seek the reversal of private respondents' acquittal. Therefore, the petition for certiorari should have been filed by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General. Petitioner lacks the legal standing to file the present petition because it is only the Office of the Solicitor General that can bring actions, on behalf of the State, in criminal proceedings before this Court and the Court of Appeals. 63
II
Petitioner contends that Court of Appeals Associate Justice Cruz should have inhibited himself for being a member of the Aquila Legis Fraternity. She claims that considering that she convicted some of its members for the death of Leonardo "Lenny" Villa, Associate Justice Cruz is incapable of rendering a fair decision in the present case, "more so of [her] awareness of the motto of the fraternity being 'my brother right or wrong.'" 64
Petitioner further argues that Court of Appeals Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta (Associate Justice Lampas-Peralta) should have recused herself from taking part in the disposition of the case due to the existing personal animosity between petitioner and Associate Justice Lampas-Peralta's husband, Supreme Court Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta. 65
Petitioner's assertions on the alleged bias of Court of Appeals Associate Justices Cruz and Lampas-Peralta are not persuasive.
"[M]ere imputation of bias and partiality against a judge is insufficient" 66 to disqualify a judge for lack of objectivity 67 because "bias and partiality can never be presumed." 68 In Soriano v. Angeles:
It is pertinent at this point to cite certain principles laid down by the Court regarding the disqualification of a judge for lack of the objectivity that due process requires. It is settled that mere suspicion that a judge is partial to one of the parties is not enough; there should be evidence to prove the charge. Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed, especially weighed against a judge's sacred allegation under oath of office to administer justice without respect to any person and do equal right to the poor and the rich. There must be a showing of bias and prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source resulting in an opinion in the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case. 69 (Citations omitted)
Other than her bare allegations, petitioner presented no evidence to prove bias and partiality on the part of Associate Justices Cruz and Lampas-Peralta. It was incumbent upon her to prove that they were partial to private respondents. "In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that a judge has regularly performed his [or her] duties will prevail." 70
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals March 17, 2015 Decision and June 18, 2015 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 33418, which acquitted private respondents Michael Vistan y Tolentino and Ruben Tolentino of the crime of libel, are AFFIRMED. acEHCD
SO ORDERED." Peralta, J., no part, as his spouse, Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, penned the assailed CA decision and resolution;Jardeleza, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated February 11, 2019;Hernando, J., no part, due to his prior participation in the assailed CA decision;Del Castillo, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated January 28, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, 698 Phil. 110, 124 (2012) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
2.Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Piccio, 740 Phil. 611, 622-623 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
3.Rollo, pp. 3-30.
4.Id. at 34-57. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ramon Paul L. Hernando of the Seventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
5.Id. at 31-33. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ramon Paul L. Hernando of the Former Seventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
6.Id. at 70-71.
7.Id. at 72.
8.Id. at 37.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 38.
12. Id. at 77-78.
13. Id. at 78.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 39.
16. Id. at 74.
17. Id. at 78.
18. Id. at 38. The Court of Appeals also referred to Francisco as "Ines Francisco" (see rollo, p. 36) and as "Ina Francisco" (see rollo, p. 50).
19. Id.
20. Id. at 76.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 38.
23. Id. at 39.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 83.
26. Id. at 40.
27. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Id. at 41.
32. Id. at 38.
33. Id. at 77.
34. Id. at 38.
35. Id. at 77.
36. Id. at 74.
37. Id. at 70-94. The Decision, docketed as Criminal Case No. 00-1577, was penned by Judge Pedro B. Corales of Branch 118, Regional Trial Court, Pasay City.
38. Id. at 94.
39. Id. at 34.
40. Id. at 95-97.
41. Id. at 98-101. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez of the Eleventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
42. Id. at 100.
43. Id. at 34-57.
44. Id. at 46.
45. Id. at 44-45.
46. Id. at 55.
47. Id. at 58-69.
48. Id. at 32. There is no copy of Michael and Ruben's Motion for Reconsideration in the rollo.
49. Id. at 33.
50. Id. at 3-30.
51. Id. at 25.
52. Id. at 23.
53. Id. at 127.
54. Id. at 152-159.
55. Id. at 154.
56. Id. at 13.
57. People v. Gabriel, 539 Phil. 252, 256 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Second Division].
58. 255 Phil. 851 (1989) [Per J. Gancayco, First Division].
59. Id. at 861-862.
60. Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, 698 Phil. 110, 124 (2012) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
61. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Piccio, 740 Phil. 611, 622 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
62. Id. at 623.
63. Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, 698 Phil. 110, 125 (2012) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
64. Rollo, p. 9.
65. Id. at 10.
66. Biado v. Brawner-Cualing, A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891 (Resolution), February 15, 2017 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/february2017/MTJ-17-1891.pdf> 8 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
67. Soriano v. Angeles, 393 Phil. 769, 778 (2000) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
68. People v. Aure, 590 Phil. 848, 884 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
69. Soriano v. Angeles, 393 Phil. 769, 778-779 (2000) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
70. Monticalbo v. Maraya, Jr., 664 Phil. 1, 10 (2011) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].