G.R. No. 156183 ; February 28, 2007
NICASIO I. ALCANTARA, Petitioner, vs. VICENTE C. PONCE and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Vicente Ponce filed an estafa complaint against petitioner Nicasio Alcantara. During the preliminary investigation, Ponce submitted a sur-rejoinder affidavit and later gave the investigating prosecutor a newsletter containing defamatory statements against the Alcantara family, prefaced with “For every extraordinary fortune there is a great crime” and listing alleged offenses like “Overshipment of log” and “Corporate grabbing.” Alcantara subsequently filed a libel complaint against Ponce, alleging the newsletter was maliciously circulated in the Makati Prosecutor’s Office and was not a legitimate annex to the sur-rejoinder. The City Prosecutor found probable cause for libel, leading to the filing of an information in court.
However, the Secretary of Justice reversed this, ruling the newsletter was a privileged communication submitted as an intended annex to Ponce’s pleading. The trial court, deferring to the Secretary, granted the prosecution’s motion to withdraw the information, citing lack of the essential element of publicity. The Court of Appeals initially set aside the Secretary’s resolution, but in a subsequent petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 71189) concerning the trial court’s withdrawal order, the CA upheld the trial court’s decision, prompting Alcantara’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s grant of the withdrawal of the libel information, thereby ruling that the defamatory newsletter constituted a privileged communication.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core legal principle applied is that statements made in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged if they pass the test of relevancy. This privilege applies regardless of defamatory content or malice, provided the statements are pertinent or related to the subject of inquiry.
The Court found that the newsletter, though submitted after the sur-rejoinder affidavit, was intended as an annex thereto. It discussed SEC Case No. 2507, which was directly referenced in Ponce’s affidavit as the foundational case for his complaints against the Alcantaras. The statements, while highly critical, were relevant to the estafa complaint under investigation as they pertained to the petitioner’s alleged pattern of deceit and greed—themes central to Ponce’s allegations. Furthermore, the communication was disclosed only to the investigating prosecutor, satisfying the requirement that it was made in the course of an official proceeding. Consequently, the newsletter fell within the ambit of absolutely privileged communication, negating the element of malice essential for libel and justifying the withdrawal of the criminal information.