GR L 45031; (October, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45031 October 21, 1991
NANERICO D. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Nanerico D. Santos, a columnist for the Manila Daily Bulletin, published in his column a verbatim reproduction of an unverified complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The complaint charged CMS Stock Brokerage Inc., its board chairman Carlos Moran Sison, and its president Luis F. Sison with fraudulent stock market practices. Following the publication, Sison met with Santos, who promised to publish Sison’s reply. However, the reply was not published as promised, and after subsequent confrontations, Sison informed Santos of his intent to file a libel suit.
Consequently, an information for libel was filed against Santos and others. The trial court later dismissed the case against all accused except Santos, convicting him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling the publication was not privileged as it was based on a mere complaint before any judicial action, citing Barretto and Choa Tek Hee.
ISSUE
Whether the publication of a complaint filed with the SEC before any judicial action is taken thereon is a privileged communication under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Santos. The legal logic centers on the application of Article 354, which provides that a fair and true report of any judicial or official proceeding, made in good faith without comment, is privileged and rebuts the presumption of malice. The Court rejected the strict application of the Barretto and Choa Tek Hee doctrines, which required an ongoing proceeding where both parties could be heard. Instead, it aligned with the broader principle that a complaint filed with a quasi-judicial body like the SEC constitutes part of an official proceeding. The published article was a faithful, unembellished reproduction of the pleading.
Crucially, the prosecution failed to prove actual malice, which is required to defeat a claim of privilege. The article served the columnist’s duty to inform the public on stock market news. Public policy favoring protected public discourse demands that such reports not be subjected to excessive scrutiny. Therefore, the publication was a privileged communication under Article 354(2), and no criminal liability for libel attaches.