G.R. No. 118971. September 15, 1999.
RODOLFO R. VASQUEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA BRANCH 40, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodolfo R. Vasquez, a resident of the Tondo Foreshore Area, along with 37 other families, complained to NHA General Manager Lito Atienza in April 1986 against their Barangay Chairman, Jaime Olmedo. After the meeting, petitioner and his companions were interviewed by newspaper reporters. The next day, April 22, 1986, an article entitled “38 Pamilya Inagawan ng Lupa” appeared in the newspaper Ang Tinig ng Masa. The article reported the families’ allegations that Chairman Olmedo, in conspiracy with NHA officials, had grabbed 14 lots of government land, was involved in illegal gambling and chicken theft, and was protected by certain officials. Based on this article, Olmedo filed a complaint for libel. After preliminary investigation, an Information was filed against petitioner. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 40, found petitioner guilty of libel and fined him P1,000.00, holding he failed to prove the truth of the charges and was motivated by vengeance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Petitioner appealed, contending the appellate court erred in: (1) pinpointing him as the source; (2) finding he imputed the acts to complainant; (3) ruling the imputations were malicious; (4) not appreciating his defense of truth; and (5) finding all elements of libel proven.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the liability for libel of a citizen who denounces a barangay official for misconduct in office.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioner’s statements were made in the performance of a civic duty to expose alleged official misconduct and were therefore privileged. The Court ruled that when a citizen makes a statement in good faith on a matter of public concern, such as the conduct of a public official, the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression requires that the statement be accorded a privilege. The prosecution failed to prove actual malice—that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The Court found that petitioner, as spokesperson, acted in good faith based on the families’ long-standing occupancy and NHA surveys. The charges related to Olmedo’s official duties, and under Article 354(1) of the Revised Penal Code, such a defamatory imputation is not actionable if it was made in the performance of a public duty. Furthermore, the Court applied the doctrine that in cases of libel against a public official, the prosecution must prove actual malice. Since actual malice was not proven, petitioner is entitled to acquittal. The Court also noted that even assuming the statements were not privileged, petitioner presented sufficient evidence of the truth of his allegations, including NHA documents showing Olmedo’s questionable land titles. The defense of truth, under Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, is a complete defense in cases involving imputations against public officials related to their duties.