GR 38021; (January, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 38021; January 16, 1934
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE TOPACIO and HUGO SANTIAGO, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Defendants Jose Topacio and Hugo Santiago were charged with libel. Topacio wrote and Santiago printed and published a pamphlet titled “Who is the ‘Doctor of Graft’ Squandering the Gasoline Funds?” as a supplement to a newspaper called Justice. The pamphlet contained defamatory statements and caricatures against Filemon Perez, then Secretary of Commerce and Communications, accusing him of, among other things, authorizing the use of gasoline funds for a road and bridge to benefit a private subdivision in exchange for free use of a luxurious residence, entering into shady government contracts, and causing the government to overpay for land owned by his father. The trial court convicted both defendants of libel, sentencing Topacio to a fine of P1,000 and Santiago to a fine of P300.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the accused the right to obtain certain evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred in its handling of certain documents.
3. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit certain evidence.
4. Whether the statements and cartoons in the pamphlet were defamatory.
5. Whether the defendants acted with malice.
6. Whether the printer and publisher, Hugo Santiago, is criminally liable for the libel.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
1. The trial court did not err in denying the motions for the production of documents (such as income tax returns and an auditor’s report) as the accused failed to show their materiality and that they were in the government’s possession.
2. The trial court did not err in its handling of certain documents; the accused was not prejudiced as the documents were not used against him.
3. The trial court did not err in refusing to admit evidence on matters not directly relevant to the specific defamatory statements in the pamphlet.
4. The statements and cartoons in the pamphlet were libelous per se as they imputed crimes, corruption, and acts constituting dishonesty to Secretary Perez.
5. Malice is implied (malice in law) in cases of libel per se. The accused failed to prove the truth of the statements. Furthermore, express malice (malice in fact) was shown by Topacio’s intent to impeach Perez’s reputation and force his resignation.
6. Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the person who publishes or causes the publication of libel is responsible. Santiago, as the owner-manager of the printing press who examined the manuscript, is liable. His claim of ignorance due to not understanding English was not credible, especially given the defamatory cartoons.
AI Generated by Armztrong.