GR L 5527; (December, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑5527 (December 22 1910)
The United States, plaintiff‑appellee v. Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, Lope K. Santos, Fidel A. Reyes & Faustino Aguilar, defendants‑appellants
—
FACTS: 1. On 30 Oct 1908 the daily newspaper El Renacimiento published an editorial titled “Birds of Prey” (Spanish and English versions) that sharply criticized Dean C. Worcester, then Secretary of the Interior and member of the Philippine Commission.
2. The editorial accused Worcester of greedy exploitation of Philippine natural resources and of corrupt practices, employing vivid metaphorical language.
3. Prosecuting Attorney L.M. Southworth filed a libel complaint against the five men, alleging they were the editors, proprietors, managers, printers and publishers responsible for the publication.
4. The trial court convicted all five defendants, imposing imprisonment and fines.
5. On appeal the United States sought affirmation of the convictions; the defendants argued lack of proof of authorship, absence of ownership, and that the truth of the statements was not established.
ISSUE: Whether the appellate court should:
1. Affirm the conviction and sentence of Martin Ocampo;
2. Modify (increase) the conviction and sentence of Teodoro M. Kalaw in view of the high stature of the offended official and the defendants’ failure to prove truth;
3. Reverse the conviction of Fidel A. Reyes due to insufficient evidence linking him to authorship or control of the newspaper’s editorial content.
RULING: 1. Martin Ocampo Conviction affirmed; sentenced to six (6) months’ imprisonment, a ₱2,000 fine, one‑fifth of the trial‑court costs and one‑third of the appellate‑court costs, with subsidiary imprisonment if insolvent (Act No. 1732).
2. Teodoro M. Kalaw Conviction affirmed but sentence modified to twelve (12) months’ imprisonment, a ₱3,000 fine, one‑fifth of the trial‑court costs and one‑third of the appellate‑court costs, with subsidiary imprisonment if insolvent, on the basis of the dignity of the office libeled and his failure to substantiate the truth of the allegations.
3. Fidel A. Reyes Conviction reversed and complaint dismissed for lack of sufficient proof that he authored, owned, or exercised controlling editorial authority over the publication; costs awarded de oficio.
The Court held that the “redactor‑jefe” (editor‑in‑chief) controls newspaper content; however, evidence did not establish Reyes as such, whereas it did implicate Ocampo and Kalaw. The decision was concurred in by Justices Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland, and Trent.