Yap v. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 204015. January 23, 2019.]

JERRY S. YAP, PERCY LAPID, GLORIA GALUNO, JOEY G. VENANCIO AND ERNY BALUYOT, petitioners, vs.REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY [BRANCH 220] AND NEAL CRUZ, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 23, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 204015 (Jerry S. Yap, Percy Lapid, Gloria Galuno, Joey G. Venancio and Erny Baluyot v. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City [Branch 220] and Neal Cruz). — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated July 23, 2012 and Resolution 3 dated October 23, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 123866. The CA denied petitioners' special civil action for certiorari which sought to annul and set aside the Order dated November 8, 2011 in Criminal Case No. Q-09-161259-74 issued by Branch 220 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, which, inter alia, denied the motion to quash filed by petitioners therein. Likewise assailed is the subsequent Order dated February 22, 2012 of the RTC denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Petitioners Erny Baluyot and Joey Venancio were the editor and publisher, respectively, of Police FILES! Tonite, a newspaper of general circulation in Metro Manila. Petitioners Jerry Yap and Gloria Galuno were the publisher and editor, respectively, of Hataw!, also a newspaper of general circulation in Metro Manila. Petitioner Percy Lapid was a writer for both newspapers. 4

This petition stemmed from 16 Informations for the crime of libel filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on September 18, 2009 against petitioners. The Informations alleged that sometime between April 14, 2008 and May 2, 2008, petitioners published highly libelous and malicious materials in Police FILES! Tonite and Hataw!, which allegedly degraded the honor and reputation of private respondent Neal Cruz (Cruz). During arraignment on May 26, 2010, petitioners entered pleas of not guilty on all charges. 5

On April 26, 2011, petitioners filed an omnibus motion, praying for the quashal of the Informations for the crime of libel filed against them. The motion was based on the ground that the said Informations did not state that Cruz was a private person, and he was a resident of Quezon City during the time when the alleged libelous articles were published. Consequently, petitioners argued that the Informations against them did not state the offense charged, hence, RTC had no jurisdiction over the Informations. 6 caITAC

The RTC denied the omnibus motion to quash for lack of merit. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying their omnibus motion to quash. 7

In a Decision 8 dated July 23, 2012, the CA upheld the orders of the RTC, and denied the petition for lack of merit.

Subsequently, petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution 9 dated October 23, 2012.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioners allege that the case dwells only on the question of law, that is, whether it was correct for the CA to set aside stare decisis et quieta non movere and reject the long-standing doctrine established in Agbayani v. Sayo10 that under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 11 They argue that the Informations, in violation of the ruling in Agbayani, do not state: (1) the status of the offended party as to whether he is a private person or not at the time of the commission of offense; and (2) the province or city where the libelous articles were first published and printed. 12

Petitioners likewise pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction to protect their rights from further damage and irreparable injury on account of the continued proceedings. The TRO was issued by the Court on November 21, 2012. 13

The sole issue for this Court's consideration is whether the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners' omnibus motion to quash and their subsequent motion for reconsideration.

The petition is bereft of merit.

Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363 provides, to wit:

Art. 360. Persons responsible. — x x x

xxx xxx xxx

The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)

The rules on venue that were restated in Agbayani are as follows:

1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published.

2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense.

3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila. ICHDca

4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense. 14 (Emphasis supplied.)

A perusal of the Informations filed in this case shows that the allegations therein sufficiently vested the RTC of Quezon City with jurisdiction to hear the case.

As worded, the law does not require, for purposes of determining the venue of the action, that the Information should contain allegations on whether the complainant is a public official or a private person. 15 The law, however, requires that the Information contain allegations which will serve as the legal basis for the choice of venue of the action. For instance, if the chosen venue is in the place where the libelous matter was first printed and first published, material facts pertaining to such place should be alleged in the complaint. The same principle applies when: (1) the venue chosen is the actual residence of the private complainant, where material facts pertaining to such place should be alleged; or when (2) the venue chosen is the city where the public officer holds office, where material facts leading to such fact should be alleged.

In this case, the facts alleged that respondent has actual residence in Quezon City, the city where he chose to file the libel suit. A perusal of the records would show that all the Informations sufficiently indicated the actual residence of Cruz, to wit:

"That on or about the 2nd day of May 2008, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, JERRY YAP, author and publisher and GLORIA GALUNO, an editor, respectively of HATAW!, a daily newspaper circulating in Metro Manila, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, with evident intent of exposing NEAL CRUZ, who is actually residing at No. 26 Layang-Layang St., Miranila Homes, Tandang Sora, in the said City, to public hatred, dishonor, discredit, contempt and ridicule, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and maliciously write, publish, exhibit, circulate and/or cause to be written, published, exhibited and circulated in the aforesaid newspaper, in its issue of May 2, 2008, an article entitled 'PRESS FREEDOM PARTY MITING DE AVANCE & FELLOWSHIP NIGHT,' pertinent portions of which, read as follows: x x x" 16 (Emphasis supplied.)

Indeed, the choice of venue by respondent is allowed and is provided for in the law. The allegations in the complaint sufficiently provided the legal basis for the choice of venue elected by respondent. In other words, under the facts of this case, we see no cogent reason to require respondent to allege any other fact to justify the choice of venue for the libel suit. As long as the Information alleges material facts that can unequivocally determine the choice of the venue of the libel suit (as provided for in the law), the Information should be sufficient for the purpose.

The actual residence of respondent (as complainant) is the allegation sine qua non if the circumstances as to where he actually resides is used as the basis for the venue for the libel suit. 17 This principle is in consonance with the doctrine that the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. Once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. 18

The same principle was applied by this Court in Chavez v. Court of Appeals. 19 In that case, Information for libel was filed against Francisco Chavez before the RTC of Manila. Petitioner Chavez, however, contended that the Information failed to allege that the City of Manila was the place where the offending articles were printed and first published, or that he was a resident of Manila at that time the articles were published. As a result of this defect, he argued that the RTC of Manila did not have jurisdiction over the case. In ruling in favor of petitioner Chavez, this Court found that "what the Information categorically stated, at the very least, was that the libelous matter was 'published in English in Smart File.'" The Information failed to allege that the City of Manila was the place where the offending articles were first printed and published, or that petitioner was a resident of Manila at the time the articles were published. Thus, this Court held that "the plain fact is that the Information failed to make the sufficient allegation in that regard, and even any ascertainment that the articles were printed and first published in Manila does not cure the jurisdictional defect of the Information." 20

Likewise, in Macasaet v. People, 21 this Court said that: TCAScE

"Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, mandates that either one of these statements [where the complaint was first printed and published, or the actual residence of the complainant], must be alleged in the information itself and the absence of both from the very face of the information renders the latter fatally defective. x x x The assistant city prosecutor's failure to properly lay the basis for invoking the jurisdiction of the RTC, Quezon City, effectively denied said court of the power to take cognizance of this case." 22 (Emphasis supplied.)

In the same vein, petitioners cannot rely solely on Agbayani to support their arguments. Agbayani has a different factual setting, and therefore involves a different issue, vis a vis this case. In Agbayani, this Court found that the Information is defective because it did not show that the court, where the libel complaint was filed, had jurisdiction over the case. 23 The Information in the case at bar clearly and sufficiently showed that the court has jurisdiction over the case because the libel suit was filed in the place of the actual residence of the complainant, a material fact that has been properly alleged.

This interpretation is consistent with the reason behind the amendment of the rule on venue in libel cases. In Agbayani this Court held, to wit:

"Before article 360 was amended, the rule was that a criminal action for libel may be instituted in any jurisdiction where the libelous article was published or circulated, irrespective of where it was written or printed x x x. Under that rule, the criminal action is transitory and the injured party has a choice of venue.

Experience had shown that under that old rule the offended party could harass the accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a remote or distant place.

xxx xxx xxx

[T]o forestall such harassment, Republic Act No. 4363 was enacted. It lays down specific rules as to the venue of the criminal action so as to prevent the offended party in written defamation cases from inconveniencing the accused by means of out-of-town libel suits, meaning complaints filed in remote municipal courts x x x." 24 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)

Under the facts of this case, We hold that the evil sought to be avoided is absent. The venue of libel cases where complainant is a private person, as in this case, is confined to two venues, namely: (1) where the subject article is first printed and first published; and (2) where complainant actually resides at the commission of the offense. In this case, We note that the Informations contain a categorical allegation of respondent's actual residence, which sufficiently gives basis for his choice of venue for the libel suit. Therefore, there exists already an impediment against the filing of suits in arbitrary locations, the repercussion which the law intends to avert. In fact, We have already held that the pre-condition to allege, with particularity, the facts pertaining to the circumstances of the chosen venue is necessary to forestall any inclination to harass. 25

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated July 23, 2012 and Resolution dated October 23, 2012 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court dated November 21, 2012 enjoining the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 220, from hearing and trying Criminal Case No. Q-09-161259-74 is hereby LIFTED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-23.

2.Id. at 27-39. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, concurred in by Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.

3.Id. at 58-59.

4Id. at 28.

5.Id.

6.Rollo, pp. 28-29.

7.Id. at 29.

8.Id. at 38. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads, to wit:

   WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us DENYING the petition filed in this case for lack of merit. The Orders dated November 8, 2011 and February 22, 2012 issued by Branch 220 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region in Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-09-161259-74 are AFFIRMED.

   SO ORDERED.

9.Supra note 3.

10. G.R. No. L-47880, April 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 699.

11.Rollo, pp. 4-5.

12.Id. at 16-17.

13.Id. at 49.

14.Agbayani v. Sayo, supra note 10 at 705.

15.Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167764, October 9, 2009, 603 SCRA 124, 136-137. In this case, the Information for libel did not allege that complainant is a private individual, but this Court held that Dr. Portigo (complainant) is a private individual at the time of the publication of the alleged libelous article. This Court however, ruled that the Iloilo RTC did not have jurisdiction over the case not because of the failure to allege that complainant was a private individual, but because the Information merely alleged that "Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region," which this Court held as "only showed that Iloilo was the place where Panay News was in considerable circulation, but did not establish that the said publication was printed and first published in Iloilo City."

16.Rollo, pp. 34-35.

17.Chavez v. CA, G.R. No. 125813, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 279, 284.

18.Foz, Jr. v. People, supra note 15 at 134, citing Macasaet v. People, G.R. No. 156747, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 255.

19.Supra.

20.Id. at 291-293. Underscoring supplied.

21. G.R. No. 156747, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 255.

22.Id. at 273.

23. "We hold that the information in this case is defective or deficient because it does not show that the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, where it was filed, has jurisdiction to entertain the criminal action for written defamation initiated by Mahinan against the petitioners and that the provincial fiscal of that province had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation." Agbayani v. Sayo, supra note 10 at 707.

24.Id. at 704-705.

25.Bonifacio v. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 149, G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA 268, 281.