GR 227534; (November, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 227534 . November 29, 2021
JERRY SIA YAP, GLORIA M. GALUNO, EDWIN. R. ALCALA AND BECKY RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. POLICE SENIOR INSPECTOR ROSALINO P. IBAY, JR., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioners Jerry Sia Yap, Gloria M. Galuno, Edwin R. Alcala, and Becky Rodriguez were charged with libel via two Informations filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The charges stemmed from the publication of an article titled “Salot na Tulak sa Distrito Uno ng Maynila (Attention: PDEA)” in Hataw Newspaper (involving Yap, Galuno, and Alcala) and X-Files Newspaper (involving Yap and Rodriguez). The article referenced “S/Insp Rizalino Ibay, Jr.” in the context of a drug pusher’s arrest. The Informations alleged the crime was committed “in the City of Manila” and that the newspapers “is printed and first published in the City of Manila.” Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Informations, arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the Informations failed to specifically aver that the offended party, a public officer, held office in Manila at the time of publication, and failed to clearly state that the libelous article was printed and first published in Manila, as required by Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC denied the motion, finding that since the article mentioned the “Manila Police District (MPD) Tondo 1 Police Station,” it sufficiently indicated the offended party’s official station was in Manila, constituting substantial compliance with Article 360. The RTC also denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it for being defective (non-compliance with Rule 46, Section 3) and for being the wrong remedy. The CA denied their motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari assailing the RTC’s interlocutory order which denied the motion to quash the Informations for libel.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and sustained the denial of the motion to quash. The Court ruled that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order, which is generally not appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari unless the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. It held that the Informations, by alleging the offense was committed in Manila and that the newspaper was printed and first published in Manila, coupled with the article’s specific reference to the “Manila Police District (MPD) Tondo 1 Police Station,” substantially complied with the jurisdictional requirements of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court emphasized that for libel cases where the offended party is a public officer, venue lies either where they held office at the time of the offense or where the libelous article was printed and first published. The allegations in the Informations, read together with the quoted article, sufficiently vested jurisdiction in the Manila RTC.