GR 133896; (January, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133896 ; January 27, 2006
DOLORES MAGNO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Dolores Magno and private complainant Cerelito Alejandro were neighbors with a long-standing dispute over a passageway. In March 1991, Dolores wrote on her garage wall statements calling a person a “maniac” and a “dog thief,” which Cerelito believed referred to him. Days later, she wrote similar statements on an extension wall, which was seen by Cerelito’s son. Subsequently, Dolores sent an unsealed envelope containing three letters to Cerelito’s wife via his sister. The letters, addressed to the spouses Alejandro and to a police commander, contained virulent language, reiterating the accusations of being a “maniac,” “dog thief,” “dog-napper,” and “illiterate,” and included vulgar insults about his family origins.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed petitioner Dolores Magno’s conviction for two counts of libel.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. For libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication; (c) malice; (d) the imputation is directed at a natural or juridical person; and (e) the imputation tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. All elements were established. The writings clearly identified Cerelito through direct reference to his name and nickname (“Cere Lito O. Cedring”) and described specific, defamatory acts. Publication was proven for the two counts: for the wall writings, they were in a place visible to the public and were seen by Cerelito and his son; for the letters, they were communicated to third parties (Cerelito, his sister, and his wife) when delivered in an unsealed envelope. Malice was conclusively presumed from the defamatory character of the statements. The defense of privileged communication failed, as the letters, though sent in reply to a police blotter, were not confined to the police but were sent directly to the offended party’s family, constituting a separate, malicious publication. The petitioner’s authorship of the letters was also sufficiently established by circumstantial evidence and unrebutted testimony.