GR 125813; (February, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125813; February 6, 2007
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RAFAEL BASKIÑAS and RICARDO MANAPAT, Respondents.
FACTS
An Information for libel was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against private respondents Rafael Baskinas and Ricardo Manapat, the Editor-in-Chief and Author-Reporter, respectively, of “Smart File” magazine. The Information alleged that they conspired to publish libelous articles against petitioner Francisco I. Chavez in March 1995 in Manila. Private respondents moved to quash the Information, but the RTC denied their motion. They subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals granted the petition and quashed the Information. It ruled that the Information was fatally defective for failing to allege with specificity the venue of the offense as required under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The appellate court noted that the Information merely stated the libelous matter was “caused to be published in Smart File, a magazine of general circulation in Manila,” but it did not allege that the magazine was printed and first published in Manila, nor did it state that petitioner Chavez resided in Manila at the time of the offense.
ISSUE
Whether the Information for libel is sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Manila, considering its failure to allege specifically where the libelous article was printed and first published, or where the private complainant actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the Information was jurisdictionally defective. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides the specific rules on venue for libel cases. For a private individual complainant, the action must be filed either where he actually resided at the time of the offense or where the libelous article was printed and first published.
The Court emphasized that these venue requirements are jurisdictional. The Information must contain factual averments demonstrating compliance with these rules; a mere general allegation of publication in a place is insufficient. Following precedents like Agbayani v. Sayo and Soriano v. IAC, the Court ruled that the phrase “caused to be published in… Manila” is a conclusion of law, not a statement of fact. It does not equate to an allegation that the article was “printed and first published” in Manila, which is the critical jurisdictional fact. Since the Information lacked this essential allegation and also did not state Chavez’s residence, it failed to establish proper venue. Consequently, the RTC of Manila did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. The defect is fatal and warrants the quashal of the Information.