G.R. No. L-10215; March 13, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. R. MCVULLOUGH DICK, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, R. McCullough Dick, the editor and proprietor of the periodical Free Press, published an article entitled “The Oxypathor The Tin Can ‘Anting-Anting.'” The article alleged that the firm of Luis R. Yangco, through its manager C. Regidor (the complaining party), was knowingly and dishonestly selling a fraudulent medical device called the “oxypathor” to the public. The article used language charging the firm and its manager with bad faith, stating they were “foisting” a fraud upon the public and could not “stand up under the strain” of doing the honorable thing. At trial, the defendant admitted authorship, responsibility, and the wide circulation of the article. He made no attempt to prove the truth of the allegations contained in the publication.

ISSUE:
Whether the published article constitutes libel against C. Regidor.

RULING:
Yes, the article constitutes libel. The Court affirmed the judgment convicting the defendant.

The language used in the article is libelous per se as it tends to impeach the honesty and reputation of C. Regidor by directly charging him with acting in bad faith and participating in a fraud upon the public. The defense that the article primarily referred to the firm of Luis R. Yangco and only mentioned Regidor incidentally as its manager is unavailing. The libelous charges were made against the firm through its manager, Regidor, implicating him directly in the alleged wrongful acts.

The defendant’s claim that he was actuated by a general good purpose to protect the public is not a defense. Under Act No. 277 (the Libel Law), an injurious publication is presumed malicious if no justifiable motive is shown. A complete defense requires proof of the truth of the charges and that they were published with good motives and for justifiable ends. The defendant failed to prove the truth of his allegations. Consequently, his good motive, even if sincere, does not excuse the publication of defamatory falsehoods. The mistake of believing a wrongful act to be right does not free one from guilt.

The Court expressly declined to rule on the actual merits or fraudulent nature of the “oxypathor,” as no evidence was presented on this point. The conviction was based solely on the libelous character of the unproven accusations against the complainant.