Roberto Brillante v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos.

118757 & 121571, October 19, 2004

(2nd Division), J. Tinga
Facts: Roberto Brillante, then a candidate for the position of councilor in Makati City held a
press conference at the Makati Sports Club which was attended by some 50 journalists. In the
course of the press conference, Brillante accused Binay of plotting the assassination of Syjuco. He
further accused Binay of terrorism, intimidation and harassment of the Makati electorate. Brillante
also circulated among the journalists copies of an open letter to President Aquino which discussed
in detail his charges against Binay. Several journalists wrote articles regarding the same and an
open letter was published as well. As a result of the publication of the open letter, Binay filed with
the Makati fiscals office four complaints for libel against Brillante. Brillante contended that when the
Informations in Criminal Cases No. 89-69614 to 17 were filed by the prosecutor on January 16,
1989, the offense had already prescribed because more than one year had elapsed since the
publication of the open letter on January 10, 11 and 12, 1988.
The trial court found Brillante guilty of four counts of libel, which decision the CA affirmed.
Issues:
1

Whether or not the act of libel charged against petitioner has prescribed when the
information was filed before the trial court.

Whether or not the open letter can be considered as privilege communication;

Whether or not the petitioner was denied the equal protection of the laws; and

Whether or not the penalty imposed against the petitioner is excessive.

No. Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of libel shall prescribe

Ruling:
within one year. In determining when the one year prescriptive period should be
reckoned, reference must be made to Article 91 of the same code which sets forth the
rule on the computation of prescriptive periods of offenses which states that period of
prescription shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. The
offense of libel had not yet prescribed because the one-year prescription period should
be reckoned from the time that complainant filed his complaint with the fiscals office on

January 15, 1988 and not when the Informations were filed by the prosecutor on
January 16, 1989. The institution of the complaint before the fiscals office or the courts
for preliminary investigation interrupts the prescriptive period of the offense charged
No, since the open letter and the statements uttered by petitioner during the press conference are
defamatory and do not qualify as conditionally privileged communication, malice is presumed and
need not be proven separately from the