SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250601. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.VILLAMOR P. CASTILLO, LYDIA P FRANCISCO, EVELYN R. BULUSAN, LUISA B. PURISIMA, LETICIA P. ALIPIO, CORNELIA*T. PURISIMA, EVELYN B. SEDANO, TITA B. PABLO, LOURDES F. TUAZON, EVANGELINE P. OLI, AND ROSALIA A. MAGGAY, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 October 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 250601 (People of the Philippines v. Villamor P. Castillo, Lydia P Francisco, Evelyn R. Bulusan, Luisa B. Purisima, Leticia P. Alipio, Cornelia T. Purisima, Evelyn B. Sedano, Tita B. Pablo, Lourdes F. Tuazon, Evangeline P. Oli, and Rosalia A. Maggay). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated July 28, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 37202 affirming with modification the Joint Decision 3 dated September 30, 2014 of Branch 11, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pata, Tuao, Cagayan which found Villamor P. Castillo, Lydia P. Francisco, Evelyn R. Bulusan, Luisa B. Purisima, Leticia P. Alipio, Cornelia T. Purisima, Evelyn B. Sedano, Tita B. Pablo, Lourdes F. Tuazon, Evangeline P. Oli, and Rosalia A. Maggay (accused-appellants) guilty of Libel.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellants, along with several other persons, were charged with Libel under the following Amended Informations 4 both dated January 28, 2011:
Criminal Case No. 1426-T
The undersigned, Provincial Prosecutor hereby accuses VILLAMOR P. CASTILLO, LYDIA P. FRANCISCO, ROGELIO U. FRANCISCO, ROMEO A. PAGULAYAN, ENRIQUE G. ROSETE, VICTOR M. TUBBAN, MA. THERESA T. MALODRIGO, EDITHA T. MABAZZA, JOSE C. MABAZZA, GEORGE C. CAUILAN, EVELYN R. BULUSAN, LUIS B. PURISIMA, FRANCISCO M. CATRIZ, HERBERT C. LAMUSAO, LETICIA P. ALIPIO, RENALYN B. CARLOS, MARYANN B. SORIANO, QUERICO B. BAUIT, PAULINO A. TALIPING, SANTOS J. CLEMOR, CORNELIA T. PURISIMA, EVELYN B. SEDANO, TITA B. PABLO, LOURDES F. TUAZON, LORELIE P. TUGADE, EDWIN C. ADDURU, GEORGETTE G. DUMELOD, EVANGELINE P. OLI, TERESITA D. TALLUD, IRENE G. ALFONSO, ROSALIA A. MANGGAY, HERACLIO T. CASTILLO, and SIMEON CARLO RAQUINIO, FACULTY AND STAFF OF INATS of the crime of LIBEL defined and penalized under Article[s] 353, [and] 354 in relation to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
That on or about October 25, 2008 in the municipality of Tuao, province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused x x x with malicious intent to impeach, destroy, dishonor, discredit, and besmirch the good name, integrity, honesty, virtue and reputation of the complainant, Mrs. NERISSA C. BERNARTE a respected person in their community as well as in the school where she teaches and with the malicious intent of injuring and destroying her good name integrity, honesty, virtue and reputation and exposing said complainant to public hatred, contempt and ridicule and with the further intention to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of person conspiring together and confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously write, publish and circulate separate but similarly titled and worded resolutions against the aforesaid complainant entitled "A RESOLUTION PETITIONING THE IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF MR. ALEJANDRE M. BERNARTE AND MRS. NERISSA C. BERNARTE" which were signed by the above-mentioned school organizations containing libelous, derogatory and defamatory words, phrases and/or expressions furnishing copies thereof to the Hon. Congressman Manuel N. Mamba, Congressman of the Third District of Cagayan, Hon. William N. Mamba, Mayor of the Municipality of Tuao and Hon. Marriette L. Tomaneng, Schools Division Superintendent, DepEd Division of Cagayan, substantial portion of the aforesaid identical resolutions is quoted hereunder as follows, to wit:
"x x x Whereas, majority of the school's faculty and staff, with the full support and cooperation of parents and other stockholders of education, are excellently performing their tasks in the atmosphere of unity, cooperation and mutual respect;
Whereas, such unity, cooperation and mutual respect have been degraded and are continuously wrecked by two (2) teachers in the person[s] of Alejandre M. Bernarte and Mrs. Nerissa C. Bernarte;
Whereas, these teachers, instead of cooperating and protecting the image of the school system, are the ones working and coaching parents and students to go against the administration;
Whereas, these are not only disrespectful to their peers, superiors, barangay officials and parents but are also dishonest;
Whereas, these teachers are not only uncooperative and disrespectful but are also cruel to students;
Whereas, in order to cover up their mischievous and dishonest activities, they tried to find faults among fellow teachers and the administration and magnify them among parents and students;
Whereas, these activities made by them created disintegration and apathy among students, parents and teachers;
Now resolved, as it is hereby resolved, that Mr. and Mrs. Bernarte be accorded with the necessary sanction and castigation because of these unbecoming and dishonest acts. x x x"
that by the said resolution quoted above the accused wanted to make it appear, as in fact they did make it appear that the complainant Mrs. NERISSA C. BERNARTE is disrespectful, dishonest, cruel to students, uncooperative, mischievous and dishonest teacher thereby imputing against the complainant a crime or a vice or defect or any act, omission, condition or circumstance, said accused knowing fully well that their statements and imputations which were contained in their resolution above-mentioned were untrue and made only for the purpose of discrediting and exposing the complainant to public contempt and ridicule, to the damage and prejudice of complainant, Mrs. Nerissa C. Bernarte taking into consideration the good name and reputation she is enjoying as a teacher and as a private person in the community where she is teaching and living, thus, entitled to damages as may be awarded under the provisions [of the] [C]ivil [C]ode.
Contrary to law. 5
The Information 6 in Criminal Case No. 1427-T is similarly worded except for the name of the offended party — Alejandre M. Bernarte (Alejandre).
When arraigned, accused-appellants and their other co-accused pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. 7
The RTC ordered and conducted a joint proceeding of the two cases. The cases were referred to the Philippine Mediation Center for the possibility of an amicable settlement. During the conciliation proceedings, private offended parties, spouses Nerissa C. Bernarte (Nerissa) and Alejandre (collectively, Spouses Bernarte) and several of the accused entered into amicable settlements. Upon approval by the RTC of the amicable settlement agreements, the charges against Rogelio Francisco, Enrique Rosete, Jr., Ma. Theresa Malodrigo, George Cauilan, Herbert Lamusao, Maryann Soriano, Paulino Taliping, Edwin Adduru, Jose Mabazza, Irene Alfonso, Simeon Carlo Raquino, Romeo Pagulayan, Victor Tubban, Editha Mabazza, Francisco Catriz, Jr., Renalyn Carlos, Querico Bauit, Santos Clemor, Georgette Dumelod, Teresita Tallud, Heraclio Castillo, and Lorelie Paccalagan-Tugade were dismissed. 8
The cases against herein accused-appellants proceeded.
During the pre-trial proceedings, the parties stipulated, among others, that the faculty and staff of the Itawes National Agricultural and Technical School (INATS) met and passed a resolution petitioning for the immediate transfer of Spouses Bernarte On October 25, 2008; and copies of the resolution were furnished to Mayor William Mamba of Tuao, Cagayan; ex-Congressman Manuel Mamba; student council of INATS Bulagao Campus; officers and members of the PTCA of INATS Bulagao Campus; and Schools Division Superintendent of Cagayan. 9
The parties also identified the issues to be resolved, viz.: (1) whether the two Informations 10 sufficiently make out a case for Libel; and (2) whether there was a sufficient publication pursuant to Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). 11
Because the issues were purely legal in nature, the parties agreed to submit the cases for decision without any further hearing. 12
The RTC Ruling
In the Joint Decision 13 dated September 30, 2014, the RTC found accused-appellants guilty as charged. The RTC ruled that the Informations alleged facts and circumstances sufficient to make out a case for Libel. Accused-appellants made imputations against Spouses Bernarte of vices, defects, acts, and circumstances that are defamatory. Hence, such imputations are presumed to be malicious pursuant to Article 354 of the RPC. 14
The RTC likewise found that the subject documents, which are the resolutions passed by accused-appellants containing the allegedly libelous remarks, were sufficiently published within the contemplation of Article 354 of the RPC as copies thereof were furnished to some individuals who had no interest or duty on the matter.
Furthermore, the RTC held that Spouses Bernarte are entitled to moral damages.
The RTC disposed thusly:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, accused VILLAMOR P. CASTILLO, LYDIA P. FRANCISCO, EVELYN R. BULUSAN, LUISA B. PURISIMA, LETICIA P. ALIPIO, CORNELIA T. PURISIMA, EVELYN B. SEDANO, TITA B. PABLO, LOURDES F. TUAZON, EVANGELINE P. OLI and ROSALIA A. MAGGAY are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 1426-T and are hereby meted out the penalty of FINE in the amount of THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00) each. They are likewise ordered to pay jointly and severally the private complainant, NERISSA C. BERNARTE, moral damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00) and to pay the costs. The same named-accused are also hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 1427-T and are hereby meted out the penalty of FINE in the amount of THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00) each. They are further ordered to pay jointly and severally the private complainant, ALEJANDRE M. BERNARTE, moral damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00) and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. 15
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA. 16
The CA Ruling
In the assailed Decision 17 dated July 28, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC with modification in that it reduced the amount of moral damages from P200,000.00 to P100,000.00 to the Spouses Bernarte.
The CA affirmed the RTC's conviction of accused-appellants for Libel. The CA particularly found that malice was established in the case as the resolutions contain defamatory statements. It further adopted the RTC's finding that the statements do not fall within the purview of qualified privileged communication under Article 354 of the RPC inasmuch as individuals who do not have direct interest or duty on the matter and the power to give the protection sought were furnished with a copy of the resolutions. Likewise, the CA held that Spouses Bernarte, being public school teachers, are not public officers who could exempt accused-appellants from criminal liability under the rule on privileged communication.
In reducing the amount of moral damages to P100,000.00, the CA held that the circumstances do not show that Spouses Bernarte suffered grave or substantial damage to their reputation to be entitled to P200,000.00 each as moral damages. 18
Hence, the appeal.
Our Ruling
At the outset, the Court notes that accused-appellants elevated the case before the Court through ordinary appeal. As a general rule, appeals of criminal cases shall be brought to the Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, except when the CA imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, in which case, the appeal shall be made by a mere notice of appeal (ordinary appeal) before the CA. 19 Clearly, accused-appellants availed themselves of a wrong mode of appeal by merely filing a notice of appeal before the Court despite not having been sentenced by the CA to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Nevertheless, in the interest of substantial justice, the Court will treat the instant petition as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in order to resolve with finality the substantive issues at hand.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the CA.
Under Article 353 of the RPC, Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
For an imputation to be libelous under Article 353, the following requisites must be present: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable. 20
Article 354 of the RPC states that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
Article 354 provides for instances when the person who made the defamatory statements can be exempted from criminal liability. This is the rule of privileged communication. The Court has explained privileged communication in this wise:
A privileged communication may be classified as either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly privileged. The absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith. This classification includes statements made by members of Congress in the discharge of their functions as such, official communications made by public officers in the performance of their duties, and allegations or statements made by the parties or their counsel in their pleadings or motions or during the hearing of judicial proceedings, as well as the answers given by witnesses in reply to questions propounded to them, in the course of said proceedings, provided that said allegations or statements are relevant to the issues, and the answers are responsive or pertinent to the questions propounded to said witnesses. 21
The qualifiedly privileged communications arc those which contain defamatory imputations but which are not actionable unless found to have been made without good intention or justifiable motive, and to which "private communications" and "fair and true report without any comments or remarks" belong. Since the qualifiedly privileged communications are the exceptions to the general rule, these require proof of actual malice in order that a defamatory imputation may be held actionable. But when malice in fact is proven, assertions and proofs that the libelous articles are qualifiedly privileged communications are futile, since being qualifiedly privileged communications merely prevents the presumption of malice from attaching to a defamatory imputation. 22
The Court agrees with the RTC and the CA's finding that the imputations made by accused-appellants are defamatory — they tend to cause dishonor or discredit to Spouses Bernarte. Indeed, the following statements deducible from the resolutions are defamatory:
1. [Spouses Bernarte] have degraded and continuously wrecked the unity, cooperation and mutual respect among the faculty, staff, parents and other stakeholders at INATS;
2. [Spouses Bernarte], instead of protecting the image of the school system, worked to coach parents and students to go against the administration;
3. [Spouses Bernarte] are disrespectful to their peers, superiors, barangay officials and parents;
4. [Spouses Bernarte] are dishonest;
5. [Spouses Bernarte] are uncooperative and are also cruel to students;
6. [Spouses Bernarte] are mischievous and fault finders; and
7. [Spouses Bernarte] created disintegration and apathy among students, parents and teachers. 23
Further, the defamatory statements cannot be considered as privileged communication because these are not statements made in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty, or made by public officers in the performance of their duties. Neither is it a fair and true report without any comments or remarks.
Further still, the RTC correctly observed that individuals who do not have direct interest or duty on the matter and the power to give the protection sought were furnished with a copy of the resolutions. Indeed, as properly found by the RTC:
Copies of this actionable document were furnished to Congressman Manuel N. Mamba, Hon. Mayor William N. Mamba and Hon. Marietta L. Tumaneng, Schools Division Superintendent, DepE[d] Division of Cagayan, the officers and members of the Student Council of INATS and the officers and members of the PTCA of INATS. Marietta L. Tumaneng, being the Schools Division Superintendent of Cagayan, invariably had the interest and duty on the matter as well as the power to furnish the protection sought.
The same observation, however, could not be said of Congressman Manuel N. Mamba. As a member of the Legislative Branch of the government, he does not have a direct interest and duty in the imposition of sanctions arid meting out castigations upon teachers of the DepE[d], a governmental agency under the Executive Branch of the government. Much less, he is not legally empowered in any way to grant the protection sought by the accused — imposition of sanction and meting out castigation against Mr. and Mrs. Bernarte. As such, making known to him the defamatory imputations expressed in the actionable document, in the law of libel, is publication x x x. A similar situation obtains in the case of Hon. Mayor William N. Mamba of Tuao, Cagayan. The accused had not shown any clear, categorical and convincing evidence that Mayor Mamba have a direct interest and duty in the imposition of sanctions and meting out castigations upon teachers of' the DepEd. The accused further failed to show any proof that Mayor Mamba was legally empowered to impose sanctions and mete out castigations against Mr. and Mrs. Bernarte as teachers of INATS. As a matter of fact, clearly demonstrating his lack of power of discipline over Alejandre and Nerissa, instead of acting directly on the complaints of the accused against them, Mayor Mamba referred said complaints to the Sangguniang Bayan of Tuao, Cagayan x x x. All the more that these observations are true in respect of the officers and members of the Student Council of INATS and the officers and members of the PTCA of INATS, whom the accused admitted to have furnished copies of the actionable document. 24
Lastly, the Court affirms the penalty of fine imposed by the CA and the award of moral damages. Moral damages may be recovered in cases of libel, slander, or any other form of defamation. 25
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated July 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 37202 is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, i) in Criminal Case No. 1426-T, accused-appellants are meted out the penalty of a fine of P3,000.00 each and ordered to jointly and severally pay private complainant Nerissa C. Bernarte moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00; and ii) in Criminal Case No. 1427-T, accused-appellants are meted out the penalty of a fine of P3,000.00 each and ordered to jointly and severally pay private complainant Alejandre M. Bernarte moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00.
The damages awarded are subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO, J.; Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Referred to as Cornela in some parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 22-23.
2.Id. at 3-21; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Elihu A. Ybañez, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 31-44; penned by Presiding Judge Edmar P. Castillo, Sr.
4. As culled from the CA Decision, rollo, pp. 5-10.
5.Id. at 5-8.
6. As culled from the CA Decision, id. at 8-10.
7. CA rollo, p. 88.
8.Id. at 38-39.
9.Id. at 39.
10. As culled from the CA Decision, rollo, pp. 5-10.
11. CA rollo, p. 40.
12.Id. at 40.
13.Id. at 31-44.
14.Id. at 40-41 and rollo, p. 14.
15. CA rollo, p. 44.
16.Id. at 14.
17.Rollo, pp. 3-21.
18.Id. at 19-20.
19.Arambulo v. People, G.R. No. 241834, July 24, 2019.
20.Manila Bulletin Publishing Corp. v. Domingo, 813 Phil. 37, 55 (2017).
21.Id. at 63.
22.Id. at 63 -64,
23. CA rollo, pp. 40-41.
24. CA rollo, pp. 42-43.
25. Article 2219 (7) of the Civil Code.