Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

SPECIAL NINTH DIVISION

JRV CICL-IS-NO. 08-1614, Petitioner, -versusREGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MARIKINA BRANCH 192, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND CELINE D. QUANICO, Respondents. CA G.R. SP No. 125708 Members: * BARZA, R. F. Acting Chairperson LOPEZ, and INTING, J.J. Promulgated: December 21, 2012

X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

DECISION
LOPEZ, J.: On August 4, 2008, Celine D. Quanico filed a complaint for libel with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Marikina against Justine P. Dimaano, Francesca Vanessa S. Fugen, Roberto Armando C. Hidalgo, Danielle Vicaldo, Anthony Jay L. Foronda and JRV CICL-IS-No. 08-1614 (JRV for brevity), who was sixteen years old at the time the alleged offense was committed.1 Quanico and Dimaano, et al. are members of

Multiply.com2, a website that allows the members to post

* Acting Chairperson, per Amended Office Order No. 444-12-ABR, dated December 17, 2012 1 Rollo, p. 71. Complaint-Affidavit. N.B. Justine P. Dimaano, Francesca Vanessa S. Fugen, Roberto Armando C. Hidalgo, Danielle Vicaldo, Anthony Jay Foronda and JRV CICL-IS-No. 08-1614 are subsequently and collectively referred to as Dimaano, et al. 2 Multiply was a social networking service with an emphasis on allowing users to share media such as photos, videos and blog entries with their "real-world" network. On Multiply, a user's network was made up of their direct contacts, as well as others who are closely connected to them through their firstdegree relationships. Additionally, users were encouraged to specify the nature of their relationship with one another, making it possible to share content with their entire network of closely related people, or subsets thereof including friends, family, professional contacts, and so on. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiply_%28website%29 as posted on December 4, 2012.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708 DECISION Page 2 of 11 ___________________

blogs3 that are accessible to an entire network of closely related people including friends, family, professional contacts, and so on. In her Complaint-Affidavit, Quanico alleged that:
18. On April 10, 2008, I was informed by Athena Jan F. Valenzuela by way of a conversation over cellular phones, that she, together with Christine Michelle Fua received notices in their Multiply Inbox stating that a new blog entry by Justine P. Dimaano aka tatzmenot was posted on April 6, 2008 at 1:07 pm as per Multiply time. The blog entry was entitled Meet MY backstabber FRIEND;p. and can be accessed by typing this web address: http://tatzmenot.multiply.com/journal/item25. xxx 27. Upon personal viewing and reading of the contents of the subject blog entry, I recognized that the same was a conversation which had transpired between myself using celine_quanico and Justine P. Dimaano using tatzmenot2001 as instant messenger names respectively, on Yahoo Messenger. However, Dimaano maliciously edited my chat name into JOPAY and posted the said conversation in her Multiply page for every member of her network and possibly other persons, to see and feast on. 28. Several persons with their pictures displayed on their Multiply accounts placed their comments, further mocking me with contempt and insults. Worse, details confirming my identity were placed like deliberate and obvious hints in a sarcastic fashion of a futile attempt to cover-up. xxx 32. The following are specific lines of defamatory imputations taken from the whole text of the blog and the responses thereto, with corresponding page numbers for reference: a) By Justin P. Dimaano aka tatz tatin: xxx "I super frikin wanting to kill her and make her the frikin next assuming queen!:))p.6 "sobra! ang looser eh )" p. 6 "hahaha )thinking.......bored..... just want to ruin her reputation!:)) p. 7 xxx "sobra! shes a mother freakin dead kid mehn!
3 A blog is a shared on-line journal where people can post diary entries about their personal experiences and hobbies. See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blog as posted on December 5, 2012.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708 DECISION Page 3 of 11 ___________________

LOSER ) I bet she doesn't have real friends like me miss you dane!!! ) p. 9 "very much... tsk ;)m thinkn of an alternative way to kick her ass off this world p. 10 "oo nga mukha bakla ) hahaha how I wish na meron sxang balls so I cud kick it as hard as I can ) haha super looser nya kytes ) miss you too kytes!!! Mwax!!:) p. 10 "hahahaha lets not kill, lets just pull that bitch a little to the ground ) rather make it all throughout to hell p. 10 xxx d) by [JRV CICL-IS-No. 08-1614]: "haha. Nung una plang about the bday thing alam ko na kung sino tong B-I-T-C-H na to eh!!! Hahaha ... I pity her!! get a LIFE you stupid fuckin' playin' innocent girl!! Nakita naba nia to? How I wish nakita nia. Don't mess up with my girl here!! Gago paupak mo na kay JANTABA!! Para matapos na to.:)) "I figured!! She's a fucking LOSER!!! LOSER NA NGA BITCH PA, AT BACKSTABBER PA!!! tsss..biruin mo tatin ngkasya un sa isang panget na pangangatwan NIA!!! "~sorry ah mas mukha pa akong galit sayo eh no. hahaha.:)) loveyou tatz!! p. 7 [Emphasis Ours.]

On August 12, 2009, the City Prosecutor issued a resolution dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause, declaring that malice cannot be inferred from the statements and that [t]he word 'JOPAY' makes no clear reference to the complainant as the object of the blog.4 Quanico moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied.5 She then filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ), which reversed the findings of the City Prosecutor in its March 24, 2011 Resolution, viz:
Concededly, all the elements of libel are present in the instant case. For one, just by reading the title of the blog Meet MY backstabber FRIEND, an imputation of a condition, status or circumstance may already
4 Rollo, pp. 20-21. 5 Id., p. 22. September 11, 2009 Resolution by Prosecutor Linda Adame-Conos.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708 DECISION Page 4 of 11 ___________________

[be] discerned from its contents. Calling a person a backstabber, ugly, frikin face, mother frikin dead kid, looser, bakla, bitch, ass, liar within the knowledge of other persons is defamatory, because there is an imputation of a condition or status which tends to cause dishonor or contempt of the offended party. It thus exposes the complainant to unnecessary contempt and public ridicule every time those written words are attributed to her. xxx xxx [C]ontrary to the findings of the investigating prosecutor, the imputation was directed at the complainant. Basic is the rule that in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that she be named. The affidavits of complainant's three (3) witnesses reveal that they recognized her as the object of the libelous statements not only probably but with a high level of certainty. The facts and circumstances enumerated on the blog perfectly fit the description of the complainant. xxx WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed resolution is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the City Prosecutor of Marikina is hereby directed to file the corresponding information for LIBEL against the above-named respondents and report the action taken directly to my Office not later than ten (10) days from receipt hereof. SO ORDERED.6 annotations omitted.) (Emphasis and

Consequently, on March 13, 2012, an Information7 for

6 Id., pp. 26-28. 7 Id., pp. 30-33. The Information contained the following certification: This is to certify that I have conducted a preliminary investigation on this case; that the accused were informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against them; that they were given the opportunity to submit controverting evidence; that this Office dismissed the complaint for Libel against the respondents; that a Petition for Review was filed by complainant; that in a Resolution promulgated on March 24, 2011, the Undersecretary FRANCISCO F. BARAAN III reversed and set aside the earlier resolution dismissing the complaint and directed the Office of the City Prosecutor of Marikina to file the corresponding information for LIBEL against the respondents as based on the evidence presented there is reasonable ground to believe that the crime has been committed and that the accused are probably guilty thereof. Since one of the accused appeared to be a CICL at the time of the commission of the offense, the case was referred back to the Office for the purpose of determining discernment. That the LSWDO was tasked to interview the CICL who issued a Certification that the CICL appears to have ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, I further certify that this Information is being filed with the approval of the City Prosecutor. (signed) LINDA ADAME-CONOS

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708 DECISION Page 5 of 11 ___________________

libel was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City against Dimaano, et al., and the case was raffled to Branch 192. On March 21, 2012, JRV filed a Motion for Suspension of Proceedings and for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause8, positing that the RTC should suspend the proceedings and defer the issuance of warrant of arrest until the DOJ has definitively resolved movant's motion for reconsideration.9 In the alternative, JRV prayed for the dismissal of the case for lack of probable cause.10 According to her, the alleged libelous statements did not sufficiently identify Jopay as the complainant. The statements were not malicious since the word fuck and bitch are common expressions of anger and displeasure, and not employed to slander.11 Moreover, petitioner was sixteen (16) years old when the alleged offense was committed and she should be amply protected from such traumatic experience under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.12 On May 16, 2012, the RTC found probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest against Dimaano, et al., to wit:
Records show that on March 21, 2012, JRC CICL-IS-No. 08-1614, through counsel, filed a Motion for Suspension of Proceedings and Judicial Determination of Probable Cause. Records further show that her co-accused, JUSTINE P. DIMAANO , FRANCESCA VANESSA S. FUGEN, and ROBERTO ARMANDO HIDALGO, through their respective counsel, subsequently filed similar Motions.
Deputy City Prosecutor MCLE Compliance No. IV-0004346 [Emphases Ours] 8 9 10 11 12 Rollo, p. 34. Id., p. 34. Id., p. 38. Id., pp. 36-38. Id., p. 36.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708 DECISION Page 6 of 11 ___________________

During the hearing on April 18, 2012, the Court directed the Public and Private Prosecutors to submit their Comment on the Motions respectively filed by the CICL and the accused. On May 4, 2012, the private complainant, through counsel, with the conformity of Assistant City Prosecutor Gregorio P. Subong, Jr., filed her Opposition to the subject Motions. After a careful perusal of the Information in the above-captioned case and the documents attached thereto, the Court finds the existence of probable cause for the issuance of Warrants of Arrest against the accused, JUSTINE P. DIMAANO, FRANCESCA VANESSA S. FUGEN, JRC CICL-IS-No. 08-1614, ROBERTO ARMANDO HIDALGO, DANIELLE VICALDO, and ANTHONY JAY L. FORONDA. xxx SO ORDERED.13

JRV filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Aggrieved, she filed this petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.14 On July 30, 2012, the Court issued a Resolution directing private respondent Celine Quanico to file her Comment within ten (10) days from notice, furnishing a copy upon petitioner who may file a Reply within five (5) days from receipt of Comment. Action on the prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order was held in abeyance pending submission of such Comment.15 Private Respondent's Comment was filed on September 6, 2012.16 Considering that no reply was filed as of November 21, 2012,17 the case, as well as the prayer for issuance of
13 14 15 16 17 Id., p. 13. Id., p. 11. Id., p. 50. Id., p. 61. Id., p. 91, dorsal portion. Judicial Records Division report dated November 21, 2012 that no Reply was

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708 DECISION Page 7 of 11 ___________________

temporary restraining order, is now submitted for decision. In her Petition for Certiorari, JRV asserts that the RTC of Marikina gravely abused its discretion when it refused to dismiss the Information in spite of the patent lack of probable cause. She reiterates that: (1) the words bitch and fuck are not libelous; (2) that the blog did not give sufficient description to identify Jopay as private respondent Quanico; and (3) that petitioner was sixteen (16) years old when the alleged offense was committed. The petition is bereft of merit. At the outset, We remind the parties that the sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and does not include a correction of public respondent's evaluation of evidence and factual findings thereon.18 By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.19 The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.20 Hence, in this case, the sole issue is whether the presiding judge acted arbitrarily or despotically in rendering the assailed Orders.
filed as of entry. 18 cf. United Coconut Planters Bank v. Alberto T. Looyuko and Jimmi T. Go, G.R. No. 156337, September 28, 2007 citing Microsoft Corporation v. Best Deal Computer Center Corporation, 438 Phil. 408, 413 (2002). 19 Id., citing Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies v. Oriental Wood Processing Corporation, G.R. No. 152228, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 650, 661. 20 Ibid.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708 DECISION Page 8 of 11 ___________________

When the Information is filed with the court, the first and foremost task of the judge is to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information or any offense included therein has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.21 In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause, the judge shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.22 Before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of an accused. just In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo review the initial determination of the hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They personally prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence.23 In this case, the respondent judge24 made a finding of probable cause [a]fter a careful perusal of the Information in the above-captioned case and the documents attached

21 cf. Enrique V. Viudez II v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152889, June 5, 2009 citing Baltazar v. People, G.R. No. 174016, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 278, 293-294. 22 See AAA v. Hon. Antonio A. Carnonell, G.R. No. 171465, June 8, 2007 citing Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. Nos. L-82585, L-82827, and L-83979, November 14, 1988, 167 SCRA 393, 398. 23 Id., citing Webb v. De Leon, 317 Phil. 758 (1995), at 793. 24 Judge Graldine C Fiel-Macaraig, May 16. 2012 Order, Rollo, p. 13.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708 DECISION Page 9 of 11 ___________________

thereto25. While the judge did not enumerate the documents perused, these must consist of the DOJ's March 24, 2011 Resolution26 as well as the documents submitted by the city prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause. Apparently, the respondent judge even evaluated the initial findings of lack of probable cause by the City Prosecutor since petitioner herself submitted a copy of the August 12, 2009 Resolution Cause27. It is noteworthy that petitioner never questioned how the trial court reached the conclusion that there was probable cause. She only questioned the conclusion itself: i.e. that the trial court erred in concluding that the words bitch and fuck are libelous and that there was sufficient description to identify Quanico as the subject of the blog. In other words, petitioner is merely questioning the trial court's evaluation of evidence or its factual findings which, We reiterate, are not
25 Ibid. 26 Pertinent portions of the Resolution reads: Concededly, all the elements of libel are present in the instant case. For one, just by reading the title of the blog Meet MY backstabber FRIEND, an imputation of a condition, status or circumstance maybe (sic) already discerned from its contents. Calling a person a backstabber, ugly, frikin face, mother frikin dead kid, looser, bakla, bitch, ass, liar within the knowledge of other persons is defamatory, because there is an imputation of a condition or status which tends to cause dishonor or contempt of the offended party. It thus exposes the complainant to unnecessary contempt and public ridicule every time those written words are attributed to her. xxx xxx [C]ontrary to the findings of the investigating prosecutor, the imputation was directed at the complainant. Basic is the rule that in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that she be named. The affidavits of complainant's three (3) witnesses reveal that they recognized her as the object of the libelous statements not only probably but with a high level of certainty. The facts and circumstances enumerated on the blog perfectly fit the description of the complainant. xxx WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed resolution is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the City Prosecutor of Marikina is hereby directed to file the corresponding information for LIBEL against the above-named respondents and report the action taken directly to my Office not later than ten (10) days from receipt hereof. SO ORDERED. [Id., pp. 26-28.] 27 Rollo, pp, 34-43.

along

with

her

Motion

for

Suspension

of

Proceedings and for Judicial Determination of Probable

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708 DECISION Page 10 of 11 ___________________

within the ambit of a petition for certiorari. Finally, anent petitioner's invocation that she was sixteen (16) years old when the alleged offense was committed and should be protected under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, We only need to bring her attention to the City Prosecutor's Certification in the Information, to wit:
xxx This is to certify that I have conducted a preliminary investigation on this case; that the accused were informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against them; that they were given the opportunity to submit controverting evidence; xxx. Since one of the accused appeared to be a CICL at the time of the commission of the offense, the case was referred back to the Office for the purpose of determining discernment. That the LSWDO was tasked to interview the CICL who issued a Certification that the CICL appears to have ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT. I further certify that this Information is being filed with the approval of the City Prosecutor. (signed) LINDA ADAME-CONOS Deputy City Prosecutor MCLE Compliance No. IV-0004346 [Emphasis Ours]28

WITH THE STATED REASONS, the petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

MARIO V. LOPEZ Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ROMEO F. BARZA Associate Justice SOCORRO B. INTING Associate Justice

28 Id., p. 33.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708 DECISION Page 11 of 11 ___________________

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ROMEO F. BARZA Acting Chairperson, Special Ninth Division