G.R. No. 206905. January 30, 2023
JUNAR D. ORILLO AND FLORENCIO E. DANIELES, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Romeo Cabatian filed a libel case against Junar D. Orillo, Florencio E. Danieles, and others. The Information alleged that on or about April 26, 2002, in Taguig, Metro Manila, the accused, conspiring with each other, willfully and feloniously posted at the bulletin board of the Pasay Alabang FTI South Expressway Jeepney Operators and Drivers Association’s (PAFSEJODA) jeepney terminal a complaint for carnapping filed by co-accused Jean Jardeleza against Cabatian before the Office of the Pasig City Prosecutor, with the evident purpose of impeaching his virtue, honesty, and reputation and exposing him to public contempt. The accused, except one at large, pleaded not guilty. Prosecution witnesses Ronald Regala and Faustino Villaflor, PAFSEJODA members, testified they saw Orillo, Danieles, and others posting the documents on the terminal bulletin board around 8:00 a.m. on April 26, 2002. The documents pertained to a criminal complaint for carnapping. Cabatian arrived later, had photographs taken of the posted documents, and then removed them. Orillo presented an alibi, claiming he was in Bicol from the evening of April 25, 2002, for a town fiesta and a baptism on April 27, 2002. Danieles claimed he was merely a spectator who saw a commotion at the bulletin board. The Regional Trial Court convicted Orillo, Danieles, and another, sentencing them to imprisonment and ordering them to pay damages and attorney’s fees to Cabatian. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications to the penalty and damages. Orillo and Danieles elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioners Junar D. Orillo and Florencio E. Danieles for the crime of libel.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of libel were present: the imputation was defamatory, malicious, given publicity, and the victim was identifiable. The posted documents, containing a sworn statement accusing Cabatian of carnapping, were defamatory as they ascribed the commission of a crime and discredited his character. Malice was presumed from the defamatory character of the words, and the petitioners failed to prove any of the exceptions under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, such as fair and true report of official proceedings. The posting on a public bulletin board constituted publication to third persons. Cabatian was clearly identifiable as the subject. The Court rejected Orillo’s alibi, finding it not physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene in the morning of April 26, 2002, and still travel to Bicol, and found his evidence insufficient. It also rejected Danieles’s denial, which could not prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses. The Court modified the awards of damages, deleting the awards for acceptance fee, termination fee, and appearance fees for lack of factual and legal basis, and reduced the moral damages to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). The penalty was modified in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law and prevailing jurisprudence, imposing a fine instead of imprisonment.