G.R. No. L-10077; February 26, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE G. MONTALVO, FIDEL S. HERVAS and CRESCENCIANO LOZANO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants-appellants, Jose G. Montalvo, Fidel S. Hervas, and Cresenciano Lozano, were convicted by the Court of First Instance of the crime of criminal libel against Melecio Montinola, the justice of the peace of Iloilo. They were each fined P1,000, with subsidiary liability in case of insolvency, and ordered to pay costs. The conviction was based on two articles published in their newspaper, El Adalid, on November 29 and December 2, 1913. The articles criticized Judge Montinola’s conduct during a preliminary investigation in a gambling case against Mrs. Soledad Santaromana Smith. The articles accused Montinola of weakness, partiality, and succumbing to the influence of a prominent attorney, Edmond Block, by granting Block’s request to exclude the public (including the appellant Lozano, a photographer) from the hearing. The articles implied Montinola lacked integrity and civic courage, suggesting he should resign. The appellants offered evidence to prove they acted without malice based on public rumors about Montinola’s reputation, but the trial court excluded this evidence. They also objected to the participation of private counsel assisting the provincial fiscal in the prosecution.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the published articles are libelous.
2. Whether the trial court erred in excluding proffered evidence regarding the official conduct of the prosecuting witness (Judge Montinola) to show lack of malice.
3. Whether the trial court erred in permitting private counsel to assist the provincial fiscal in the prosecution.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of conviction.

1. On the Libelous Nature of the Articles: The Court held the articles were libelous. They contained defamatory imputations against Judge Montinola, accusing him of weakness, partiality, and a lack of integrity in office. The subsequent publications in El Adalid on January 3, 10, and 12, 1914, which continued to attack Montinola (including a derogatory pun on “Honorable”), demonstrated the malicious intent behind the publications. Under Act No. 277 , libel is defined as a “malicious defamation,” and an injurious publication is presumed malicious if no justifiable motive is shown.

2. On the Exclusion of Evidence: The Court found no error in the exclusion of the proffered evidence. The defense sought to introduce evidence of public rumors about Montinola’s reputation to show a lack of malicious intent. However, the Court ruled that even if admitted, such evidence would not constitute a complete defense under Section 4 of Act No. 277 , which requires proof of both the truth of the defamatory matter and that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. The appellants failed to establish the truth of their accusations. Furthermore, the malicious spirit of the appellants was clearly shown by their subsequent publications, which were admissible to demonstrate the intent behind the original libels.

3. On the Participation of Private Counsel: The Court held that the assistance of private counsel to the provincial fiscal did not violate Section 14 of Act No. 277 . While the law vests the “sole direction and control” of libel prosecutions in the ordinary prosecuting officers (to emphasize that criminal libel is a public offense), it does not prohibit such officers from being assisted by private counsel, provided the prosecuting officer retains direction and control. In this case, the provincial fiscal maintained control over the prosecution.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.
Johnson and Moreland, JJ., concur in the result.