G.R. No. 46079. April 17, 1989.
ESTEBAN C. MANUEL, petitioner, vs. THE HON. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Br. XVIII, Q.C., ANTONIO A. BARANDA, EDSEL LABAYEN and ROLANDO GATMAITAN, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a raid conducted by the Anti-Smuggling Action Center (ASAC) on April 21, 1976, at the Tokyo Hotel in Binondo, Manila, pursuant to a warrant of seizure and detention. Articles belonging to the petitioner’s clients, tourists from Hongkong, were seized. Most items were later released upon proof of payment of customs duties. As counsel, Esteban C. Manuel sent a detailed letter dated April 29, 1976, to the ASAC Chairman, complaining about the raid’s conduct, alleging acts like forcible entry, ransacking, personal theft from his client, and falsification of documents by ASAC agents. He demanded an investigation. An internal ASAC investigation exonerated the agents.
Subsequently, a news item summarizing the civil case for damages filed by the tourists appeared in the Bulletin Today on June 10, 1976. Based on this publication, ASAC agents filed a criminal complaint for libel against Manuel and his clients. An information was filed charging them with having “published, exhibited and caused to be published” the libelous article. Manuel filed a motion to quash the information, arguing the facts alleged did not constitute an offense, as he did not author, publish, or cause the publication of the news report. The respondent judge denied the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the information for libel, which failed to allege facts constituting the offense charged against the petitioner.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the orders of the respondent judge, and dismissed the criminal case. The Court held that the information was fatally defective. It alleged that the petitioner “published, exhibited and caused to be published” the news item but contained no factual averments showing how he performed these acts. The information merely recited the libelous article’s contents without stating the petitioner’s participation in its publication. An information must state every single act constituting the offense; its failure to do so warrants a quashal. The published report was a straightforward account of a judicial proceeding—the filing of a civil case—and was therefore privileged communication. A fair and true report of judicial proceedings, made without malicious remarks, is privileged, and malice is not presumed. The Court viewed the prosecution as a manifest effort to persecute and intimidate the petitioner for accusing ASAC agents, highlighting the oppressive context of martial law. The respondent judge’s denial of the motion to quash, despite the patent insufficiency of the allegations, constituted grave abuse of discretion.