SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205746. April 3, 2013.]
VICTOR LEE, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, * issued a Resolution dated 03 April 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 205746 — (Victor Lee v. People of the Philippines). — This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Victor Lee assailing the July 31, 2012 decision 1 and January 9, 2013 resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00714.
Sometime in 2000 and 2001, the petitioner distributed leaflets and other printed materials to students walking in front of the Cebu Doctors College, containing the following words:
"HOY! GISING SATANIC DOCTOR AT CEBU DOCTORS HOSPITAL, SATANIC DRS. DR. JOVITO LEE, SR. AND DR. JOVITO LEE, JR. WHO VICTIMIZED 25 CHILDREN. OUR PATIENTS WERE FED TO THE VULTURES.
HOY GISING! BANTAY BATA 163, DR. JOVITO LEE, SR. AND JR.'S UNUSUAL STRANGE PROCEDURE TO THEIR CHILDREN PATIENTS.
DELAYING TACTIC SO OTHER DIES. CHILD ABUSER, SATANIC ACT. SATANIC ACT — REVIEW THEIR RECORD. IS THAT HUMAN?" HaECDI
Dr. Jovito Lee, Jr. (Dr. Lee) reported the incident to the police who, in turn, brought the petitioner to the police station. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an Information for libel against the petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Cebu City.
In its decision dated October 10, 2006, the RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of libel, and sentenced him to pay a P6,000.00 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. It also ordered the petitioner to indemnify Dr. Lee the amount of P500,000.00. 3
The petitioner paid the P6,000.00 fine, but questioned the trial court's award of P500,000.00 moral damages to Dr. Lee before the CA. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 00714.
In its decision of July 31, 2012, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA ruled that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of libel. It added that although the defamatory words alleged in the Information vis-a-vis as found by the RTC were not phrased in the exact manner, the libellous imputations were essentially the same, i.e., Dr. Lee was a satanic doctor and child abuser who victimized 25 children. It reasoned out that Dr. Lee could not argue that he was not afforded the opportunity to defend himself against the charges against him since the difference lies only in the phraseology of the imputations.
The CA affirmed the RTC's award of moral damages as the defamatory materials caused anxiety, emotional distress and embarrassment to Dr. Lee. It also sustained the amount of the awarded moral damages since the petitioner admitted that he has been publishing "libellous imputations" against Dr. Lee for the past 10 years.
The petitioner moved to reconsider this decision, but the CA denied his motion in its resolution of January 9, 2013.
The Petition for Review on Certiorari:
In the present petition, the petitioner essentially claimed that the CA erred in sustaining the trial court's award of P500,000.00 moral damages to Dr. Lee. He maintained that the awarded amount would unjustly enrich Dr. Lee.
Our Ruling:
We deny the petition, but reduce the awarded moral damages from P500,000.00 to P100,000.00.
We stress at the outset that the petitioner is not contesting his conviction for libel (he already paid the P6,000.00 fine imposed on him), but only the propriety of the trial court's award of P500,000.00 moral damages to Dr. Lee.
Moral damages are not punitive in nature but are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused to a person. Although incapable of exactness and no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the sound discretion of the court, it is imperative, nevertheless, that (1) injury must have been suffered by the claimant, and (2) such injury must have sprung from any of the cases expressed in Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code. Corollarily, Article 2219 (7) of the Civil Code states that moral damages may be recovered in cases of libel, slander, or any other form of defamation.
For the court to arrive upon a judicious approximation of emotional or moral injury, competent and substantial proof of the suffering experienced must be laid before it. AEDHST
In the present case, Dr. Lee testified that he had suffered countless emotional distress, anxiety and embarrassment due to the petitioner's act of distributing defamatory and libellous materials against him. According to Dr. Lee, some of his patients did not anymore return to him as a result of the petitioner's activities. Clearly, the petitioner's actions besmirched Dr. Lee's reputation and caused him social humiliation. We note in this regard that the petitioner admitted that he has been distributing printed materials against Dr. Lee for the past 10 years to expose the latter's alleged wrongdoings. Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court's award of moral damages was proper. Considering, however, that moral damages are not meant to enrich the complainant, we reduce the awarded amount from P500,000.00 to P100,000.00.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the assailed Court of Appeals decision and resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 00714 with the MODIFICATION that the amount of the awarded moral damages is reduced from P500,000.00 to P100,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
*Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. was designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, per Special Order No. 1437 dated March 25, 2013.
1.Rollo, pp. 27-43; penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang, and concurred in by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
2.Id. at 45-46.
3.The dispositive portion of the RTC decision did not specify what kind of damages is to be paid by the petitioner to Dr. Lee. The body of the trial court's decision, however, stated that Dr. Lee is entitled to moral damages and explained the basis for this award.