GR 142509; (March, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142509 . March 24, 2006.
JOSE ALEMANIA BUATIS, JR., Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ATTY. JOSE J. PIERAZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose Alemania Buatis, Jr. sent an open letter dated August 18, 1995, addressed to private complainant Atty. Jose J. Pieraz. The letter, retrieved by Atty. Pieraz’s wife from their mailbox, contained derogatory statements, calling Atty. Pieraz’s legal letter “lousy but inutile,” written in “carabao English,” and concluding with “Yours in Satan name.” Atty. Pieraz’s family read the letter and ridiculed him. Buatis later sent a second letter with similar insults. Consequently, Atty. Pieraz filed a complaint for libel, claiming damage to his reputation and health.
During trial, Buatis initially denied authorship but later admitted sending the letters via his counter-affidavit. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of libel, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The courts found the letter libelous per se, containing defamatory imputations made with malice and published to third parties.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for the crime of libel.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. All elements of libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code were present: a defamatory imputation, malice, publication to a third person, and identifiability of the victim. The letter’s content, describing Atty. Pieraz’s work as “inutile” and “stupid,” clearly tended to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. Malice was conclusively presumed from the defamatory nature of the statements per se. Publication was established as the open letter was read by Atty. Pieraz’s wife and children.
However, applying the ruling in Baculi v. Sandiganbayan, the Court modified the penalty. Considering the nature of the offense and the circumstances—where the libelous remarks arose from a heated exchange of letters concerning a client representation—the Court deemed a fine more appropriate than imprisonment. The prison sentence was deleted, and a fine of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) was imposed, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The award of compensatory damages was also deleted. The decision underscores that while defamation is punishable, the penalty may be tempered to serve the ends of justice and rehabilitation.