GR 184800; (May, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 184800 ; May 5, 2010
WONINA M. BONIFACIO, JOCELYN UPANO, VICENTE ORTUOSTE AND JOVENCIO PERECHE, SR., Petitioners, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 149, and JESSIE JOHN P. GIMENEZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Jessie John Gimenez, representing the Yuchengco family and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., filed a criminal complaint for libel against petitioners and other officers/trustees of the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI). PEPCI was formed by disgruntled planholders of Pacific Plans, Inc., a Yuchengco-owned company under rehabilitation. The complaint alleged that petitioners, as trustees, published thirteen defamatory articles on the internet via websites like www.pepcoalition.com, accessible in Makati. One cited article accused the Yuchengcos of deceitful tactics and urged a boycott. The Makati City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed Informations. The Secretary of Justice later reversed this, opining that “internet libel” was non-existent and directed the withdrawal of the Informations. However, the trial court denied petitioners’ motion to quash based on this directive, prompting this certiorari petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the libel Informations despite the Secretary of Justice’s finding of no probable cause and order to withdraw the charges.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Secretary of Justice’s resolution reversing the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause is not binding on the court. While the prosecution’s control over criminal actions includes the authority to move for dismissal, the court must independently evaluate the merits of such a motion. The trial court retains the inherent judicial power to determine, based on its own assessment of the evidence, whether there is probable cause to hold the accused for trial. In this case, the trial court found that the allegations in the Amended Information, if hypothetically admitted, sufficiently constituted the offense of libel. The Information alleged that petitioners, as trustees holding title to the website, published defamatory imputations in a place of public and general circulation (the internet) within Makati’s jurisdiction. The court correctly ruled that the medium of publication—the internet—does not negate the crime of libel under the Revised Penal Code, as the law does not distinguish the mode of publication. The trial court’s denial of the motion to quash was a proper exercise of its judicial discretion to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and certiorari does not lie to review an interlocutory order absent a clear showing of caprice or arbitrariness.