Mejorada v. People
This is a criminal case, Mejorada vs. People of the Philippines, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on June 10, 2019. The Court denied the petition of Manuel "Boy" P. Mejorada and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of libel. The Court held that the elements of libel were established, and malice was presumed since the articles were not privileged communication or fair comments. The Court also held that the prosecution's failure to present the private complainant as a witness was not fatal, and the penalty of imprisonment was affirmed, as it was warranted under the circumstances to meet the demands of substantial justice.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245850. June 10, 2019.]
MANUEL "BOY" P. MEJORADA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245850 (Manuel "Boy" P. Mejorada v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the September 18, 2018 Decision 2 and the March 7, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40141 for failure of petitioner Manuel "Boy" P. Mejorada (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming with modification the February 1, 2017 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 118, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of the crime of Libel. HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the CA, the elements 5 of Libel were sufficiently established by the prosecution. It was not necessary to establish that the publication was motivated by any malice since the articles were not privileged communication or fair comments; thus, malice is presumed. 6 The accusatory character of the subject articles, as well as petitioner's failure to present any proof that the statements were based on established and documented facts, negates petitioner's claim that the articles were made in good faith. Furthermore, the prosecution's failure to present the private complainant as a witness is not fatal since the other prosecution witnesses sufficiently established the damage caused by the publication of the articles. 7 Finally, the CA correctly affirmed the penalty of imprisonment rather than a fine. Even though Administrative Circular No. 08-08 provides that a fine is preferred over imprisonment in libel cases, the Court did not remove the discretion of the trial courts to impose imprisonment if, under the circumstances, a fine was insufficient to meet the demands of substantial justice or would depreciate the seriousness of the offense. 8 Here, the CA sufficiently outlined the circumstances which warranted imprisonment. 9
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-36.
2.Id. at 171-197. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring.
3.Id. at 198-200.
4.Id. at 54-86. Penned by Presiding Judge Rowena Nieves A. Tan.
5. See id. at 187-188. See also Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicles Publishing Corporation, 620 Phil. 697, 715 (2009).
6. See Article 354 of the REVISED PENAL CODE.
7. See rollo, pp. 187-195.
8. See Punongbayan-Visitacion v. People, G.R. No. 194214, January 10, 2018.
9. See rollo, pp. 199-200.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU