G.R. No. 164845 /G.R. No. 181732/G.R. No. 185315, July 13, 2021
Case Parties: WILLIAM TIENG, WILSON TIENG, AND WILLY TIENG, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE SELMA PALACIO-ALARAS, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF MAKATI CITY RTC, BRANCH 62 AND HILARION HENARES, [JR.], RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 181732] WILLY TIENG, PETITIONER, VS. HILARION M. HENARES, JR. RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 185315] HILARION M. HENARES, JR., PETITIONER, VS. WILLIAM TIENG AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

These are consolidated petitions arising from libel charges filed by the Tieng brothers (William, Willy, and Wilson) against Hilarion M. Henares, Jr. for allegedly defamatory remarks made on his daily radio and television program, “Make My Day with Larry Henares.” The petitions present novel questions regarding Articles 355 and 360 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
In G.R. No. 185315, Henares assails the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution which upheld the denial of his motion to quash an Information for libel filed by William Tieng before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City. Henares moved to quash on grounds including that the RTC Parañaque lacked jurisdiction because the Information failed to allege that William Tieng actually resided in Parañaque City or that the libelous matter was “printed and first published” there. He argued that radio and television broadcasts are permanent means of publication included in “written defamations” under Article 360 of the RPC for venue purposes. The RTC and CA ruled that Article 360 applies only to “written defamations” and that for radio broadcasts, the general venue rule under Section 15(a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure governs.
In G.R. No. 181732, Willy Tieng assails the CA Decision and Resolution which granted Henares’s petition for certiorari and prohibited the Makati City RTC from proceeding with three libel cases filed against him. The CA ruled that the Makati RTC did not acquire jurisdiction because the Informations failed to allege that the libelous utterances were made in Makati City, as required for oral defamation under Article 360. The CA held that the defamatory statements broadcast on television constituted oral, not written, defamation.
In G.R. No. 164845 , the Tieng brothers assail the CA Decision and Resolution in G.R. No. 181732, arguing that the CA erred in ruling that the libel committed via television is oral defamation and in dismissing the criminal cases.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the special venue rule under the third paragraph of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code applies to libel committed by means of radio, television, and broadcast media, or whether such defamation is governed by the general venue rule for criminal actions.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the special venue rule in the third paragraph of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code applies exclusively to written defamation or libel. Libel committed by means of radio, television, and broadcast media is not “written defamation” for purposes of this special venue rule. Instead, the general venue rule under Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure applies to such cases. The Court held that the defamatory statements broadcast via radio and television in these cases constitute oral defamation or slander, not written libel, for jurisdictional purposes.
The Court explained that Article 360 distinguishes between oral and written defamation for venue purposes. The third paragraph specifically uses the terms “written defamation,” “libelous article,” and “printed and first published,” which are characteristics of written, printed, or published material. Radio and television broadcasts are instantaneous, transitory, and lack the permanence and tangible form of written publications. While Article 355 of the RPC lists various means of committing libel, including radio, this pertains to the nature of the offense and the penalty, not to the venue. The legislative history of Republic Act No. 4363 , which amended Article 360, confirms the intent to limit its special venue provisions to written defamation. Therefore, for libel committed via broadcast media, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. Consequently, the Court denied the petitions in G.R. Nos. 164845 and 181732 and granted the petition in G.R. No. 185315, reversing the CA’s ruling in that case and reinstating the RTC Parañaque’s orders denying Henares’s motion to quash.