POLICARPIO vs.
MANILA TIMES of the crimes of malversation of public funds
May 30, 1962
Facts:
Plaintiff Lumen Policarpio seeks to recover
damages from Manila Times by reason of the
publication in the Saturday and the Daily
Mirror of two articles which are claimed to be
per se defamatory, libelous and false and
jeopardize her integrity and good name.
These articles were about the charges against
her which caused her to be separated from her
service as the executive secretary of the local
UNESCO National Commission. Plainitff
maintains that the effect of these false
statements was to give the general impression
that she was guilty or at least probably guilty
1 "PALACE OPENS INVESTIGATION OF RAPS
AGAINST POLICARPIO
Alba Probes Administrative Phase of
Fraud Charges Against Unesco Woman
Official; Fiscal Sets Prelim Quiz
Of Criminal Suit on Aug. 22.
The administrative phase of two-pronged investigation Miss
Lumen Policarpio, head of the Unesco national commission
here, opened in Malacañan before Col. Crisanto V. Alba.
The judicial inquiry of charges filed by Herminia D. Reyes,
also the complainant in the Malacañan case before the
Presidential Complaints and Action Commission, will be
conducted by Fiscal Manases G. Reyes on Aug. 22 at 2 p.m.
Miss Policarpio stands accused by Reyes of having
malversed public property and of having fraudulently sought
reimbursement of supposed official expenses.
Colonel Alba, at the start of his investigation at the
Malacañan Park, clarified that neither he nor the PCAC had
initiated the criminal action before the city fiscal's office.
The complaint before the fiscal was started by an
information she naming Herminia D. Reyes as complainant
and citing other persons as witnesses. Fiscal Reyes set
preliminary investigation of these charges for Aug. 22.
Miss Reyes, technical assistant of the Unesco, stated at the
Palace inquiry that during 1955 Miss Policarpio allegedly
used several sheets of government stencils for her private
and personal use, such as for French lessons, contracts of
sale of pianos and for invitations of the League of Women
Voters of which she (Miss Policarpio) is an officer. The
Unesco commission here functions under the Office of the
President.
The charge was filed with the PCAC, and the PCAC
endorsed it to Colonel Alba for investigation.
Miss Policarpio this morning was not represented by an
lawyer. Federico Diaz, lawyer representing complainant
Miss Reyes, petitioned for the suspension of Miss
Policarpio, executive secretary of the Unesco.
and estafa. Likewise, she asserted that there
are other inaccuracies in the news item.1
Issue:
Whether or not Manila Times had acted
maliciously in publishing the aforementioned
articles.
Held:
Yes. Every defamatory imputation is
presumed to be malicious, even if it be true,
if no good intention and justifiable motive for
making it is shown, except in the following
cases:
1. A private communication made by
any person to another in the
Alba did not act immediately on the petition. He said he was
holding a hearing on the petition on August 15.
During this morning's investigation three witness appeared.
The first witness was Atty. Antonio Lopez of the PCAC who
brought with him 18 sheets of stencil which were allegedly
used by Miss Policarpio for her personal use. These sheets
were admitted as temporary exhibits.
The second witness was Federico Vergara of the Unesco
who said that he received four of the 18 sheets, but he could
not identify which of the sheets he had received.
The third witness was Francisco Manalo who certified on the
charge of oppression in office against Miss Policarpio.
The other charge of Miss Reyes corresponded to supposed
reimbursements sought by Miss Policarpio for a trip to
Quezon Province and to Pangasinan. On the first, Miss
Reyes' complaint alleged the Unesco official had asked for
refund of expenses for use of her car when, Miss Reyes
claimed she had actually made the trip aboard an army plane.
Miss Reyes also said Miss Policarpio was absent from the
Bayambang conference for which she also sought allegedly
refund of expenses.
The complainant had previously been ordered relieved of her
Unesco post by Miss Policarpio and had later sued at the
Palace and before the Court for payment of her salary.
The title of the article of August 11, 1956 — "WOMAN
OFFICIAL SUED" — was given prominence with a 6-
column (about 11 inches) banner headline of one-inch types.
Admittedly, its sub-title — "PCAC RAPS L. POLICARPIO
PIO ON FRAUD" — printed in bold one-centimeter types,
is not true. Similarly, the statement in the first paragraph of
the article, to the effect that plaintiff "was charged with
malversation and estafa in complaints filed with the city
fiscal's office by the Presidential Complaint and Action
Commission" — otherwise known as PCAC — is untrue, the
complaints for said offenses having been filed by Miss
Reyes. Neither is it true that said "criminal action was
initiated as a result of current administrative, investigation",
as stated in the second paragraph of the same article.
 performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good
faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial legislative or
other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of any
statement, report or speech delivered
in said proceedings, or of any other
act performed by public officers in the
exercise of other functions.
In the case at bar, aside from containing
information derogatory to the plaintiff, the
article presented her in a worse predicament
than that in which she, in fact, was. In other
words, said article was not a fair and true
report of the proceedings there in alluded to.
What is more, its sub-title – “PCAC RAPS L.
POLICARPIO ON FRAUD” – is a comment
or remark, besides being false. Accordingly,
the defamatory imputations contained in said
article are “presumed to be malicious”.
Lopez publisher and owner of Manila
Chronicle and Gatbonton (Editor) v.
Court of Appeals and Cruz (1970)
Ponente: Fernando, J.
Facts:
1. January 1956 – Front-page story on
the Manila Chronicle à Fidel Cruz,
sanitary inspector assigned to the
Babuyan Islands, sent distress signals
to US Airforce planes which
forwarded such message to Manila
2. An American Army plane dropped
emergency sustenance kits on the
beach of the island which contained,
among other things, a two way radio
set. Using the radio set Cruz reported
to the authorities in Manila that the
locals were living in terror due to a
series of killings committed on the
island since Christmas of 1955.
3. Philippine defense forces (scout
rangers) were immediately deployed
to the babuyan claro. They were led
by Major Wilfredo Encarnacion who
discovered that Cruz only fabricated
the story about the killings to get
attention. Cruz merely wanted
transportation home to Manila.
4. Major Encarnacion branded the fiasco
as a “hoax” à the same word to be
used by the newspapers who covered
the same.
5. January 13, 1956 - This Week
Magazine of the Manila Chronicle,
edited by Gatbonton devoted a
pictorial article to it. It claimed that
despite the story of Cruz being a hoax
it brought to light the misery of the
people living in that place, with
almost everybody sick, only 2
individuals able to read and write and
food and clothing being scarce
6. January 29, 1956 - This Week
Magazineà in the "January News
Quiz" made reference to Cruz as “a
health inspector who suddenly felt
"lonely" in his isolated post, cooked
up a story about a murderer running
loose on the island of Calayan so that
he could be ferried back to
civilization.” à Called it “Hoax of the
year”
7. In both issues photos of a Fidel Cruz
were published but both photos were
of a different person of the same name
à Fidel G. Cruz former mayor,
business man, contractor from Santa
Maria, Bulacan.
8. January 27, 1957 à published
statements correcting their misprint
and explained that confusion and
error happened due to the rush to meet
the Jan 13th issue’s deadline
9. Cruz sued herein petitioners for libel
in CFI Manila. Cruz won and was
awarded P11,000 in damages (5k
actual, 5k moral, 1k attorney’s fees)
10. CA affirmed CFI decision hence this
case
Issue:
1. WON petitioners should be held
liable for their error in printing the
wrong Fidel Cruz’s photo in relation
to the “hoax of the year”?
2. WON such error is sufficient ground
for an action for libel to prosper?
Held:
Yes they are liable but damages awarded to
Cruz is reduced to P1,000.00
Ratio:
1. Mistake is no excuse to absolve
publishers because libel is harmful on
its face by the fact that it exposes the
injured party to more than trivial
ridicule, whether it is fact or opinion
is irrelevant.
2. Citing Lu Chu Sing v. Lu Tiong Gui
à libel is "malicious defamation,
expressed either in writing, printing,
or by signs or pictures, or the like, ...,
tending to blacken the memory of one
who is dead or to impeach the
honesty, virtue, or reputation, or
publish the alleged or natural defects
of one who is alive, and thereby "pose
him to public hatred, contempt, or
ridicule,"
3. Citing standard treatise of Newell on
Slander and Libel à "Publication of a
person's photograph in connection
with an article libelous of a third
person, is a libel on the person whose
picture is published, where the acts
set out in the article are imputed to
such person."
4. In this case à 3rd person was Cruz à
his picture being published beside the
article imputes him as the purveyor of
the hoax of the year
5. Libel cannot be used to curtail press
freedom however it also cannot claim
any talismanic immunity form
constitutional limitations
6. State interest in press freedom à citing
Justice Malcolm: Full discussion of
public affairs is necessary for the
maintenance of good governance…
“Public officials must not be too thin-
skinned with reference to comments
on official acts”…”of course criticism
does not authorize defamation.
Nevertheless, as an individual is less
than the state, so must expected
criticism be born for the common
good.”
7. So long as it was done in good faith,
the press should have the legal right
to have and express their opinions on
legal questions. To deny them that
right would be to infringe upon
freedom of the press.
8. “Last word on the subject” à Citing
Quisumbing v. Lopez: Press should
be given leeway and tolerance as to
enable them to courageously and
effectively perform their important
role in our democracy
9. Freedom of the press ranks high in the
hierarchy of legal values
10. TEST of LIABLITY à must prove
there was actual malice in publishing
the story/photo! (Note: but this was
not done in this case)
11. Citing Concepcion, CJ. à Correction
of error in publishing does not wipe
out the responsibility arising from the
publication of the original article
Correction = Mitigating circumstance not a
justifying circumstance!
U.S. v Bustos G.R. No. L-12592 March 8,
1918
J. Malcolm
Facts:
In 1915, 34 Pampanga residents signed a
petition to the Executive Secretary regarding
charges against Roman Punsalan, the justice
of the peace of Macabebe. They wanted to
oust him from his office.
Specific allegations against him included
bribery charges, involuntary servitude, and
theft.
The justice denied the charges. In the CFI, not
all the charges were proved. But, the judge
still found him guilty.
Punsalan filed charges alleging that he was
the victim of prosecution and one Jaime, an
auxiliary justice, instigated the charges
against him for personal reasons. He was
acquitted.
The complainants filed an appeal to the
Governor General but it wasn’t acted upon.
Criminal action was instituted aganst the
residents by Punsalan.
The CFI found almost all of the 34 defendants
guilty and sentenced them to pay 10 pesos or
suffer imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The defendants filed a motion for a retrial to
retire the objection made by Punsalan. The
trial court denied the motion. All except 2 of
the defendants appealed. Making
assignments of error.
1. The court erred in overruling motion for
retrial.
2. Error in not holding that the libelous
statement was not privileged
3. Error in not acquitting defendants
4. Evidence failed to show gult of defendants
beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Erred in making defendants prove that the
libelous statements were true.
6. Error in sustaining the prosecution’s
objection to the introduction in evidence by
the accused of the affidavits upon which the
petition forming the basis of the libelous
charge was based.
7. Erred in refusing to permit the defendants
to retire the objection in advertently
interposed by their counsel to the admission
in evidence of the expediente administrativo
out of which the accusation in this case arose.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendants and appellants
are guilty of a libel of Roman Punsalan,
justice of the peace in Pampanga.
Held: Yes. Defendants acquitted.
Ratio:
Freedom of speech was nonexistent in the
country before 1900. There were small
efforts at reform made by the La Solidaridad.
The Malolos Constitution, on the other hand,
guaranteed freedom of speech.
During the U.S. period, President McKinley
himself laid down the tenet Magna Charta of
Philippine Liberty when he wrote, “that no
law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press or of the rights of the
people to peaceably assemble and petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."
This was in the Philippine Bill.
In the Amrican cases it was held, there were
references to “public opinion should be the
constant source of liberty and democracy.” It
also said “the guaranties of a free speech and
a free press include the right to criticize
judicial conduct. The administration of the
law is a matter of vital public concern.
Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced
is, therefore, a fit subject for proper comment.
If the people cannot criticize a justice of the
peace or a judge the same as any other public
officer, public opinion will be effectively
muzzled. Attempted terrorization of public
opinion on the part of the judiciary would be
tyranny of the basest sort.”
“It is a duty which everyone owes to society
or to the State to assist in the investigation of
any alleged misconduct. It is further the duty
of all who know of any official dereliction on
the part of a magistrate or the wrongful act of
any public officer to bring the facts to the
notice of those whose duty it is to inquire into
and punish them.”
The right to assemble and petition is the
necessary consequence of republican
institutions and the complement of the part of
free speech. Assembly means a right on the
part of citizens to meet peaceably for
consultation in respect to public affairs.
Petition means that any person or group of
persons can apply, without fear of penalty, to
the appropriate branch or office of the
government for a redress of grievances. The
persons assembling and petitioning must, of
course, assume responsibility for the charges
made.
Public policy has demanded protection for
public opinion. The doctrine of privilege has
been the result of this. Privilged
communications may in some instances
afford an immunity to the slanderer. Public
policy is the “unfettered administration of
justice.”
Privilege is either absolute or qualified.
Qualified privilege is prima facie which may
be lost by proof of malice. This is apparent in
complaints made in good faith against a
public official’s conduct having a duty in the
matter. Even if the statements were found to
be false, the protection of privilege may cover
the individual given that it was in good faith.
There must be a sense of duty and not a self-
seeking motive.
A communication made bona fide upon any
subject-matter in which the party
communicating has an interest, or in
reference to which has a duty, is privileged, if
made to a person having a corresponding
interest or duty, although it contained
criminatory matter which without this
privilege would be slanderous and actionable.
In the usual case malice can be presumed
from defamatory words. Privilege destroys
that presumption. The onus of proving malice
then lies on the plaintiff. The plaintiff must
bring home to the defendant the existence of
malice as the true motive of his conduct.
Falsehood and the absence of probable cause
will amount to proof of malice.
It is true that the particular words set out in
the information, if said of a private person,
might well be considered libelous per se. The
charges might also under certain conceivable
conditions convict one of a libel of a
government official. As a general rule words
imputing to a judge or a justice of the peace
dishonesty or corruption or incapacity or
misconduct touching him in his office are
actionable. But as suggested in the beginning
we do not have present a simple case of direct
and vicious accusations published in the
press, but of charges predicated on affidavits
made to the proper official and thus
qualifiedly privileged. Express malice has not
been proved by the prosecution. Further,
although the charges are probably not true as
to the justice of the peace, they were believed
to be true by the petitioners. Good faith
surrounded their action. Probable cause for
them to think that malfeasance or
misfeasance in office existed is apparent. The
ends and the motives of these citizens— to
secure the removal from office of a person
thought to be venal — were justifiable. In no
way did they abuse the privilege. These
respectable citizens did not eagerly seize on a
frivolous matter but on instances which not
only seemed to them of a grave character, but
which were sufficient in an investigation by a
judge of first instance to convince him of
their seriousness. No undue publicity was
given to the petition. The manner of
commenting on the conduct of the justice of
the peace was proper.