GR L 45674; (May, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45674 May 30, 1983
EMILIANO A. FRANCISCO and HARRY B. BERNARDINO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Dr. Emiliano Francisco and Atty. Harry Bernardino were charged with grave oral defamation. The prosecution alleged that on December 26, 1965, they visited the home of a former patient, Mrs. Lourdes Cruz, who had undergone a hysterectomy performed by complainant Dr. Patrocinio Angeles at the Morong Emergency Hospital. During this visit, Dr. Francisco reportedly criticized the necessity of the operation, suggesting a mere curettage would have sufficed. Atty. Bernardino allegedly stated the doctors at the hospital were incompetent, not surgeons, and could be charged with murder through reckless imprudence.
The trial court convicted both petitioners of grave oral defamation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the conviction to simple slander, imposing a fine and moral damages. The appellate court found the statements were made during a “fact-finding interview” related to a hospital ethics committee matter but still held them criminally liable for defamation.
ISSUE
Whether the statements made by the petitioners constitute the crime of slander.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted petitioner Dr. Emiliano Francisco and, by necessary implication, found the statements non-defamatory. The Court applied the doctrine of qualifiedly privileged communication. The statements were made in the context of a fact-finding inquiry regarding a medical procedure, a matter of public interest concerning hospital care. Dr. Francisco’s remarks were a professional criticism of a surgical decision, akin to critiquing a lawyer’s handling of a case, and did not impute a crime, vice, or defect constituting slander.
Regarding Atty. Bernardino’s more severe statements, the Court rejected the theory of conspiracy. Conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt as clearly as the crime itself. Mere presence together during the conversation does not establish conspiracy, especially since the Court of Appeals had accepted the legitimate purpose of the visit. Each petitioner spoke spontaneously and individually. Consequently, Dr. Francisco could not be held liable for Atty. Bernardino’s separate utterances. The Court emphasized that branding such professional criticism as libelous would set a dangerous precedent, chilling necessary discourse on matters of public and professional concern.