GR 124491; (June, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124491 June 1, 1999
ROQUE VICARIO Y MENDEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Roque Vicario was charged with libel by Judge Proceso Sidro. The Information alleged that Vicario distributed photocopies of a Philippine Daily Inquirer article headlined “SAMAR JUDGE WHO POCKETED BOND CHARGED WITH GRAFT,” which reported that the Ombudsman had filed graft charges against Judge Sidro for failing to deposit and return a cash bond. Vicario disclaimed responsibility for the distribution, asserting the libel suit was ill-motivated as he had previously filed graft and administrative complaints against the judge concerning the same cash bond.
The trial court convicted Vicario, finding that while no evidence showed mass distribution, he gave one photocopy to a witness, Amador Montes, which constituted publication tainted with malice due to Vicario’s evident hatred from his testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Vicario appealed, arguing the news item was privileged, his act did not constitute libel, and his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
The main issues are: (1) whether distributing a photocopy of a newspaper article reporting graft charges against a judge constitutes libel; and (2) whether Vicario’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Vicario. The legal logic centered on the failure of the prosecution to establish the essential elements of libel, particularly malice and Vicario’s authorship of the imputation. The Court found no evidence that Vicario was the source of the statements in the news article; the article was culled from the Ombudsman’s resolution, not Vicario’s affidavit. The act of handing a single photocopy of a published newspaper report, which itself is a fair and true report of an official proceeding, constitutes a qualifiedly privileged communication under Article 354(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Once a communication is privileged, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove express malice with positive evidence. The prosecution failed to discharge this burden. The lower courts erroneously inferred malice solely from Vicario’s supposed hatred, which was an insufficient and inadequate basis. The evidence of the prosecution and defense was evenly balanced, thus, under the equipoise doctrine, the scales must tilt in favor of the accused and the presumption of innocence. Consequently, Vicario’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.