GR 118757; (November, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118757 & 121571. November 11, 2005. ROBERTO BRILLANTE, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Roberto Brillante was convicted of libel for publishing open letters in newspapers accusing private respondents, including Jejomar Binay, of terrorism and violent acts during the 1988 Makati election period. The Supreme Court, in a prior Decision, affirmed his conviction but reduced the moral damages. Brillante filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that his conviction violated equal protection since the writers and publishers were not similarly convicted, that he should only be liable for one count of libel due to a single criminal intent, and that his statements had a “semblance of truth.”
ISSUE
The primary issue for reconsideration was whether the penalty of imprisonment imposed on Brillante should be maintained.
RULING
The Court denied the motion for reconsideration on the issues of equal protection and the number of libel counts, as these had been thoroughly passed upon. However, it modified the penalty sua sponte. The Court held that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review, including unassigned errors. Examining the circumstances, the Court found that the libelous publications were made during the heated 1988 election period, prompted by a bombing incident Brillante believed implicated the respondents. While his claims did not constitute a complete privileged communication under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court recognized an “incomplete privilege” in his favor, considering the wide latitude allowed for defamatory statements against public officials on matters of public interest. Applying Article 355, which prescribes prision correccional or a fine, or both, for libel, the Court deemed the imposition of a fine alone sufficient. The intensely passionate political context and the nature of the utterances justified deleting the imprisonment penalty while retaining the fine. The modified penalty aligns with precedents like Mari v. Court of Appeals, where a fine was imposed for offenses committed under provocation.