Lopez vs. People -- GR. No.

172203, February 14, 2011

Same; Same; Criminal law; Libel; Elements; Words and Phrases: Libel is a public and malicious
imputation of a crime or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or judicial person or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead. A libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a
crime or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance
tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or judicial person or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead. For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: a)
it must be defamatory; b) it must be malicious; c) it must be given publicity and d) the victim must be
identifiable. Absent one of these elements precludes the commission of the crime of libel.

Same; Same; Personal hurt or embarrassment or offense, even if real, is not automatically equivalent to
defamation.Truth be told that somehow the private respondent was not pleased with the
controvercial printed matter. But that is grossly insufficient to make it actionable by itself. Personal
hurt or embarrassment or offense, even if real, is not automatically equivalent to defamation, words
which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words f general abuse
however opprobrious, Ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not contitutte bases for
an action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the language
is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself,.

Same; Same; Pursuant to Art. 361 of the RPC, if the defamatory statement is made against a public
official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the allegation is
shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation
was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. In arriving at an analogous finding of guilt on
petitioner, both lower courts heavily relied on the testimony of the petitioner pertaining to the reasons
behind the printing of the phrase CADIZ FOREVER BADING AND SAGAY NEVER. Our in-depth scrutiny
of his testimony, however, reveals that the reasons elicited by the prosecution mainly relate to the
discharge of private respondents official duties as City Mayor of Cadiz City. For that matter, granting
that the controversial phrase is considered defamatory, still, no liability attaches on petitioner. Pursuant
to Art. 361 of the RPC, if the defamatory statement is made against a public official with respect to the
discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the allegation is shown, the accused will be
entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good
motives and for justifiable ends. As the court held in United States v. Bustos, the policy of a public official
may be attacked, rightly or wrongly wih every argument which ability can find or ingenuity invent. The
public officer may suffer under a hostile and clear conscience. A public official must not be too thin-
skinned with reference to comments upon his official acts

People vs. Villanueva G.R . No. 169643, April 13, 2007

Same; Same; The fact of minority was further established by victims certificate of live birth, albeit a
mere photocopy of the original. The fact of minority was further established by victims certificate of
live birth, albeit a mere photocopy of the original. The Court admitted and gave weight to a photocopied
birth certificate to prove the age of the offended party.

Same; Same; Penalties; We would like to stress that even if the death penalty is not to be imposed on the
appellant because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the award of damages under prevailing
jurisprudence is not affected.-- We would like to stress that even if the death penalty is not to be
imposed on the appellant because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the award of damages under
prevailing jurisprudence is not affected. This award is not dependent on the actual imposition of death
penalty, but on the fact that the qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death
penalty attended the commission of the offense.

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ET AL. v. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., G.R. No. 203335, FEBRUARY 18,
2014

Same; Same; Criminal law; Cyberlibel under Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Law is constitutional. The
Court agrees with the Solicitor General that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the
government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation. Indeed, cyberlibel is
actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the Penal Code, already punishes
it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes similar means for
committing libel. But the Courts acquiescence goes only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the
author of the libelous statement or article. Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies, unheard of when
the Penal Code provisions on libel were enacted. The culture associated with internet media is distinct
from that of print.

Same; Same; Criminal law; Section 5 of the Cybercrime Law that punishes aiding or abetting libel on
the cyberspace is a nullity. The terms aiding or abetting constitute broad sweep that generates chilling
effect on those who express themselves through cyberspace posts, comments, and other messages. Its
vagueness raises apprehension on the part of internet users because of its obvious chilling effect on the
freedom of expression, especially since the crime of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the
cyberspace front in a fuzzy way. What is more, as the petitioners point out, formal crimes such as libel
are not punishable unless consummated. In the absence of legislation tracing the interaction of netizens
and their level of responsibility such as in other countries, Section 5, in relation to Section 4(c)(4) on
Libel, Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and Section 4(c)(2) on Child
Pornography, cannot stand scrutiny.