G.R. No.

157643               March 28, 2008 damage and prejudice of the said ANNABELLE RAMA
GUTIERREZ.
CRISTINELLI S. FERMIN,
Petitioner, CONTRARY TO LAW.7
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Upon arraignment, petitioner and co-accused Bogs C.
Tugas (Tugas) both pleaded "not guilty." Thereafter, a
DECISION joint trial ensued.

NACHURA, J.: After trial on the merits, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch
218, in its Joint Decision8 dated January 27, 1997, found
Before us is a petition1 for review on certiorari, under petitioner and Tugas guilty of libel. The dispositive
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, of the Decision 2 dated portion of the Joint Decision reads –
September 3, 2002 and the Resolution3 dated March 24,
2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. WHEREFORE, prosecution having established the guilt
20890 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Cristenelli S. of the accused, judgment is hereby rendered finding
Fermin and Bogs C. Tugas." CRISTENELLI S. FERMIN and BOGS C. TUGAS GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt, of libel, punishable under
On complaint of spouses Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences them
Eduardo (Eddie) Gutierrez, two (2) criminal informations to an indeterminate penalty of three (3) months and
for libel4 were filed against Cristinelli5 S. Fermin and eleven (11) days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one
Bogs C. Tugas before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days
Quezon City, Branch 218. Except for the name of the of prision correccional, as maximum, for each case.
complainant,6 the informations uniformly read –
Likewise, accused Cristenelli S. Fermin and Bogs Tugas
That on or about the 14th day of June, 1995 in Quezon are sentenced to pay jointly and solidarily:
City, Philippines, the above-named accused CRISTENELLI
SALAZAR FERMIN, publisher, and BOGS C. TUGAS, a) moral damages of:
Editor-in-Chief of Gossip Tabloid with offices located at
68-A Magnolia Tulip St., Roxas District, Quezon City, and 1. ₱500,000.00 to Annabelle Rama in
circulated in Quezon City and other parts of Metro Criminal Case No. Q-95-62823; and
Manila and the whole country, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping each other, 2. ₱500,000.00 to Eddie Gutierrez in
publicly and acting with malice, did then and there Criminal Case No. Q-95-62824;
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously print and circulate in
the headline and lead story of the said GOSSIP TABLOID b) attorney’s fees of ₱50,000.00.
issue of June 14, 1995 the following material, to wit:
SO ORDERED.9
"MAS MALAKING HALAGA ANG NADISPALKO
NILA SA STATES, MAY MGA NAIWAN DING Aggrieved, petitioner and Tugas appealed to the CA. The
ASUNTO DOON SI ANNABELLE" appellate court, in its Decision dated September 3,
2002, affirmed the conviction of petitioner, but
"IMPOSIBLENG NASA AMERIKA NGAYON SI acquitted Tugas on account of non-participation in the
ANNABELLE DAHIL SA KALAT DIN ANG ASUNTO publication of the libelous article. The fallo of the
NILA DU’N, BUKOD PA SA NAPAKARAMING Decision reads –
PINOY NA HUMAHANTING SA KANILA MAS
MALAKING PROBLEMA ANG KAILANGAN WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
NIYANG HARAPIN SA STATES DAHIL SA PERANG
NADISPALKO NILA, NAGHAHANAP LANG NG 1. The appealed decision as against the
SAKIT NG KATAWAN SI ANNABELLE KUNG SA accused-appellant BOGS C. TUGAS is REVERSED
STATES NGA NIYA MAIISIPANG PUMUNTA and SET ASIDE, and another is entered
NGAYON PARA LANG TAKASAN NIYA SI LIGAYA ACQUITTING him of the crime charged and
SANTOS AT ANG SINTENSIYA SA KANYA" ABSOLVING him from any civil liability; and

when in truth and in fact, the accused very well knew 2. The same appealed decision as against
that the same are entirely false and untrue but were accused-appellant CRISTENELLI S. FERMIN is
publicly made for no other purpose than to expose said AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the
ANNABELLE RAMA GUTIERREZ to humiliation and award of moral damages is REDUCED to
disgrace, as it depicts her to be a fugitive from justice ₱300,000.00 for EACH offended party, and the
and a swindler, thereby causing dishonor, discredit and award of attorney’s fees is DELETED.
contempt upon the person of the offended party, to the

Page 1 of 9
Costs against the appellant FERMIN. article, nor in the review, editing, examination, and
approval of the articles published in Gossip Tabloid.
SO ORDERED.10
The arguments are too simplistic and the cited
The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration jurisprudence are either misplaced or, in fact, damning.
for lack of merit in the Resolution dated March 24,
2003. Hence, this petition, raising the following Foremost, U.S. v. Madrigal and U.S. v. Abad Santos are
arguments: not applicable to the present case. U.S. v. Madrigal
pertains to a criminal prosecution under Section 30 of
I. Act No. 1519 for fraudulently representing the weight
or measure of anything to be greater or less than it is,
THE RULING IN U.S. VS. TAYLOR, PEOPLE VS. whereas U.S. v. Abad Santos refers to criminal
TOPACIO AND SANTIAGO, U.S. VS. MADRIGAL responsibility under the Internal Revenue Law (Act. No.
AND U.S. VS. SANTOS AND THE HOLDING IN U.S. 2339).
VS. OCAMPO AS CLARIFIED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS IN PEOPLE VS. BELTRAN AND SOLIVEN The other cases are more in point, but they serve to
REQUIRING KNOWLEDGE, PARTICIPATION AND reinforce the conviction of, rather than absolve,
COMPLICITY BY THE PUBLISHER IN THE petitioner.
PREPARATION AND APPROVAL OF THE
LIBELOUS ARTICLE TO SUSTAIN THE LATTER’S In U.S. v. Taylor, the accused was indicted under Section
CONVICTION FOR LIBEL ARE APPLICABLE IN THE 6 of Act No. 277 which provides that: "Every author,
PRESENT CASE. editor or proprietor of any book, newspaper, or serial
publication is chargeable with the publication of any
II. words contained in any part of said book or number of
each newspaper or serial as fully as if he were the
ART. 360 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE WHICH author of the same." However, proof adduced during
MAKES A PUBLISHER LIABLE FOR LIBEL TO THE the trial showed that accused was the manager of the
SAME EXTENT AS IF HE WERE THE AUTHOR publication without the corresponding evidence that, as
THEREOF MERELY CREATES A DISPUTABLE such, he was directly responsible for the writing,
PRESUMPTION WHICH MAY BE REBUTTED BY editing, or publishing of the matter contained in the said
CONTRARY EVIDENCE. libelous article.18

III. In People v. Topacio and Santiago, reference was made

to the Spanish text of Article 360 of the Revised Penal
THE QUESTIONED ARTICLE IS NOT LIBELOUS. Code which includes the verb "publicar." Thus, it was
held that Article 360 includes not only the author or the
IV. person who causes the libelous matter to be published,
but also the person who prints or publishes it.
THE QUESTIONED ARTICLE IS PROTECTED BY
THE MANTLE OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS Based on these cases, therefore, proof of knowledge of
AND IS WITHIN THE REALM OF FAIR AND and participation in the publication of the offending
HONEST COMMENT.11 article is not required, if the accused has been
specifically identified as "author, editor, or proprietor"
Being interrelated, we shall discuss the first and the or "printer/publisher" of the publication, as petitioner
second issues jointly, then the third and the fourth and Tugas are in this case.
issues together.
The rationale for the criminal culpability of those
Petitioner posits that, to sustain a conviction for libel persons enumerated in Article 360 of the Revised Penal
under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, it is Code19 was enunciated in U.S. v. Ocampo,20 to wit:
mandatory that the publisher knowingly participated in
or consented to the preparation and publication of the "According to the legal doctrines and jurisprudence of
libelous article. This principle is, allegedly, based on our the United States, the printer of a publication
ruling in U.S. v. Taylor,12 People v. Topacio and containing libelous matter is liable for the same by
Santiago,13 U.S. v. Madrigal,14 U.S. v. Abad Santos,15 and reason of his direct connection therewith and his
U.S. v. Ocampo,16 as purportedly clarified in People v. cognizance of the contents thereof. With regard to a
Beltran and Soliven.17 She submits that these cases were publication in which a libel is printed, not only is the
applied by the CA in acquitting her co-accused Tugas, publisher but also all other persons who in any way
and being similarly situated with him, she is also participate in or have any connection with its
entitled to an acquittal. She claims that she had publication are liable as publishers."
adduced ample evidence to show that she had no hand
in the preparation and publication of the offending xxxx

Page 2 of 9
In the case of State vs. Mason (26 L.R.A., 779; 26 Oreg., that the proprietor of a newspaper was answerable
273, 46 Am. St. Rep., 629), the question of the criminally as well as civilly for the acts of his servants or
responsibility of the manager or proprietor of a agents for misconduct in the management of the
newspaper was discussed. The court said, among other paper."
things (pp. 782, 783):
This was also the opinion of Lord Hale, Mr. Justice
"The question then recurs as to whether the manager Powell, and Mr. Justice Foster.
or proprietor of a newspaper can escape criminal
responsibility solely on the ground that the libelous Lofft, an English author, in his work on Libel and
article was published without his knowledge or consent. Slander, said:
When a libel is published in a newspaper, such fact
alone is sufficient evidence prima facie to charge the "An information for libel will lie against the publisher of
manager or proprietor with the guilt of its publication. a paper, although he did not know of its being put into
the paper and stopped the sale as soon as he
"The manager and proprietor of a newspaper, we think discovered it."
ought to be held prima facie criminally for whatever
appears in his paper; and it should be no defense that In the case of People vs. Clay (86 Ill., 147) the court held
the publication was made without his knowledge or that –
consent, x x x
"A person who makes a defamatory statement to the
"One who furnishes the means for carrying on the agent of a newspaper for publication, is liable both
publication of a newspaper and entrusts its civilly and criminally, and his liability is shared by the
management to servants or employees whom he agent and all others who aid in publishing it."
selects and controls may be said to cause to be
published what actually appears, and should be held It is worthy to note that petitioner was not only the
responsible therefore, whether he was individually "publisher," as shown by the editorial box of Gossip
concerned in the publication or not, x x x. Criminal Tabloid,21 but also its "president" and "chairperson" as
responsibility for the acts of an agent or servant in the she herself admitted on the witness stand.22 She also
course of his employment necessarily implies some testified that she handled the business aspect of the
degree of guilt or delinquency on the part of the publication, and assigns editors to take charge of
publisher; x x x. everything.23 Obviously, petitioner had full control over
the publication of articles in the said tabloid. Her excuse
"We think, therefore, the mere fact that the libelous of lack of knowledge, consent, or participation in the
article was published in the newspaper without the release of the libelous article fails to persuade.
knowledge or consent of its proprietor or manager is no Following our ruling in Ocampo, petitioner’s criminal
defense to a criminal prosecution against such guilt should be affirmed, whether or not she had actual
proprietor or manager." knowledge and participation, having furnished the
means of carrying on the publication of the article
In the case of Commonwealth vs. Morgan (107 Mass., purportedly prepared by the members of the Gossip
197), this same question was considered and the court Reportorial Team, who were employees under her
held that in the criminal prosecution of a publisher of a control and supervision.
newspaper in which a libel appears, he is prima facie
presumed to have published the libel, and that the Petitioner argues that Ocampo has been clarified by the
exclusion of an offer by the defendant to prove that he CA in People v. Beltran and Soliven such that Maximo V.
never saw the libel and was not aware of its publication Soliven, as publisher of The Philippine Star, was
until it was pointed out to him and that an apology and acquitted by the appellate court in view of the lack of
retraction were afterwards published in the same evidence that he knew and approved the article written
paper, gave him no ground for exception. In this same by Luis D. Beltran about then President Corazon C.
case, Mr. Justice Colt, speaking for the court, said: Aquino in the newspaper’s October 12, 1987 issue.
Petitioner submits that People v. Beltran and Soliven
"It is the duty of the proprietor of a public paper, which serves as a guide to this Court regarding the criminal
may be used for the publication of improper liability of the publisher of the newspaper where a
communications, to use reasonable caution in the libelous article is published. Put differently, it appears
conduct of his business that no libels be published." that petitioner wants this Court to follow the CA
(Wharton’s Criminal Law, secs. 1627, 1649; 1 Bishop’s decision and adopt it as judicial precedent under the
Criminal Law, secs. 219, 221; People vs. Wilson, 64 Ill., principle of stare decisis.
195; Commonwealth vs. Damon, 136 Mass., 441.)
The doctrine of stare decisis, embodied in Article 824 of
The above doctrine is also the doctrine established by the Civil Code, is enunciated, thus:
the English courts. In the case of Rex vs. Walter (3 Esp.,
21) Lord Kenyon said that he was "clearly of the opinion

Page 3 of 9
The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to COURT: So whether you are there or not, [the]
judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to same article leading to them (sic) will still find
follow the rule established in a decision of the Supreme its way to come out?
Court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial
precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all A: Yes, your honor.27
courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based
on the principle that once a question of law has been Tugas’ testimony, in fact, confirms his actual
examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and participation in the preparation and publication
closed to further argument.25 (Emphasis supplied) of the controversial article and his approval
thereof as it was written. Moreover, his alibi,
Unfortunately, the Beltran decision attained finality at which was considered meritorious by the CA,
the level of the CA. Thus, if the CA seemingly made a that he was confined at the Mother of
new pronouncement regarding the criminal liability of a Perpetual Help Clinic in Angeles City, is
publisher under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, unavailing, in view of the testimony of his
that ruling cannot bind this Court unless we purposely attending physician that Tugas’ medical
adopt the same. Be that as it may, we find no condition did not prevent him from performing
compelling reason to revisit U.S. v. Ocampo; to modify it his work, thus –
would amount to judicial legislation. Article 360 is clear
and unambiguous, and to apply People v. Beltran and Q: How would you describe the condition of the
Soliven, which requires specific knowledge, patient on June 13, 1995?
participation, and approval on the part of the publisher
to be liable for the publication of a libelous article, A: He is in stable condition.
would be reading into the law an additional
requirement that was not intended by it. Q: You said he was in severe pain, from your
opinion, was that condition sufficient to enable
In the same vein, we note that the CA erred in him to work?
acquitting Tugas. Tugas cannot feign lack of
participation in the publication of the questioned article A: Yes, in my opinion.28
as was evident from his and petitioner’s Joint Counter-
Affidavit,26 and as gleaned from his testimony before Q: You said your impression of the patient was
the trial court, to wit: urethral colic and this was caused by spasm?

WITNESS: As editor-in-chief, I have no A: Yes, sir.

participation in the writing of the questioned
article and my only participation in the Q: When you say spasm, it is not sustained, it
publication is the handling of the physical lay- comes every now and then and [intermittently],
outing, indication and allocation of type-size of it is not sustained?
the body of the article, before the same was
printed and published in GOSSIP Tabloid. A: Yes, sir.

Q: You do not deny the statements in this Q: Now you said he was in stable condition?
publication as executed by you in the counter-
affidavit and sworn in before the City A: Yes, sir.
Prosecutor, is this correct?
Q: That means that his ailment is not life-
A: Yes, that is correct. threatening?

ATTY. ALENTAJAN: A: Correct.

That is all for the witness, your Honor. Q: In fact, visitors were allowed to see him?

COURT: Do we get it right from you, if you were A: Yes, sir.

acting as you were, you will not allow the said
publication of this same article or same stories? Q: He can also write?

A: If I were, if I was physically present, honestly A: Yes, sir.

I will because if you can see the article, your
Honor, it is according to our source, it is not a Q: He was allowed to [receive] friends?
direct comment.
A: Yes, sir.

Page 4 of 9
 Q: According to you, he was able to work also, Anent the third and fourth issues, petitioner argues that
he is not totally incapacitated in performing the subject article in the June 14, 1995 issue of Gossip
certain chores in the hospital room? Tabloid is not libelous, is covered by the mantle of press
freedom, and is merely in the nature of a fair and
A: No, sir. honest comment. We disagree.

Q: Now, prior to 7:10 o’clock in the morning of The banner headlines of the offending article read:
June 13, 1995, you did not see Mr. Bogs Tugas?
KUNG TOTOONG NAKATAKAS NA SI ANNABELLE
A: I saw him, he was admitted at 7:00 o’clock RAMA, IMPOSIBLENG SA STATES SIYA
but I saw him before. NAGPUNTA!

Q: How long before 7:10 were you able to see MAS MALAKING HALAGA ANG NADISPALKO
him? NILA SA STATES, MAY MGA NAIWAN DING
ASUNTO DU’N SI ANNABELLE!
A: That is about 2 hours.
On the first page of the same issue of Gossip Tabloid,
Q: About 5:00 o’clock in the morning? written in smaller but bold letters, are:

A: Yes, sir. HINDI SIYA MAKAKAPUNTA SA AMERIKA DAHIL

NAPAKARAMI RIN NIYANG ASUNTONG INIWAN
Q: Who was his companion when you saw him? DU’N NOON PA, NAKAPAG-ABROAD MAN SIYA,
E, PIHADONG HINDI SIYA SA AMERIKA
A: He was boarding in my place. NAGTULOY, SA AMERIKA PA KAYA SIYA
MAGTATAGO, E, ILANG TAON NA RIN SIYANG
Q: So, you brought him to the hospital? INAABANGAN DU’N NG NGA KABABAYAN
NATING NILOKO NIYA, IN ONE WAY OR
A: Both of us went to the hospital. ANOTHER?... NAAALALA PA BA NINYO ‘YUNG
MGA MAMAHALING KALDERO NA IBINEBENTA
Q: Which boarding house are you referring [to]? NILA NOON SA AMERIKA, DU’N SILA
In Angeles City? NAGKAPROBLEMA, MILYON-MILYON ANG
INVOLVED, KAYA KINAILANGAN NILANG
A: Yes, sir. UMUWI SA PILIPINAS NOON!

Q: Do you know that Mr. Bogs Tugas works here The rest of the article, which continued to the entire
in Quezon City as editor-in-chief of a newspaper second page of the tabloid, follows –
tabloid?
Mainit na pinag-uusapan ngayon ang iba’t ibang
A: Yes, sir. posibilidad na maaaring gawin ni Annabelle Rama
Gutierrez para lang hindi matuloy ang pag-aresto at
Q: And some of his work is done in your pagkukulong sa kanya ng mga awtoridad kaugnay ng
boarding house? sintensiyang ipinapataw sa kanya ni Manila-RTC Judge
Rodolfo Palattao.
A: I do not know about it.
Mula noong June 8, nabatid ng Gossip Tabloid, ay wala
pang sinumang nakapagtuturo kung saan talaga naroon
Q: How did you know that he is working on his
ang ina ni Ruffa Gutierrez na hindi pinayagang
paper works in Quezon City? Did you see him do
makapagpiyansa ng Branch 33 para sa pansamantala
that?
niyang kalayaan.
A: I only know he goes to Manila everyday.
May mga nagpapalagay na sa pamamagitan ng
tinatawag na back-door exit, ang pag-alis ng bansa sa
Q: In your boarding house, you saw him read
paraang hindi na kailangan pang dumaan sa NAIA, ay
and write?
nakaalis na si Annabelle noon pang nakaraang Biyernes,
June 9, patungong Amerika.
A: Probably yes.29
Pero isang mapagkakatiwalaang source ng Gossip
But, of course, we cannot reinstate the ruling of the trial
Tabloid ang nagsabing napaka-imposibleng sa Amerika
court convicting Bogs Tugas because with his acquittal
nagtungo si Annabelle dahil doon man ay may mga
by the CA, we would run afoul of his constitutional right
nakahanda nang awtoridad na handang magkulong kay
against double jeopardy.
Annabelle, sakaling mapatunayang naroon nga siya.

Page 5 of 9
 "Hindi siya makapupunta sa Amerika dahil Masamang-masama diumano ang loob ng mga
napakarami rin niyang asuntong iniwan doon Pilipinong kinatalo roon nina Eddie at Annabelle, lalo na
noon pa! si Annabelle, na bukod sa mataray na ay may
kayabangan pa.
"Nag-abroad man siya, e pihadong hindi siya sa
Amerika nagtuloy dahil nakaabang na rin ang "Dati nang ganyan si Annabelle! Mataray siya na
sangkatutak niyang maniningil du’n ngayon! wala sa lugar. Nu’ng nasa Amerika pa silang
mag-anak, e, ‘yun din ang madalas nilang pag-
"Sa Amerika pa kaya siya magtatago, awayan du’n ni Eddie!
samantalang ilang taon na rin siyang
inaabangan du’n ng mga kababayan nating "Madalas silang magkagalit, kaya si Eddie, para
niloko niya, in one way or another?" simula ng lang makapagpalipas ng mga sama niya ng loob,
source ng Gossip Tabloid. e, du’n nag-i-stay sa bahay ng mga kaibigan
niyang Pinoy!
Niliwanag ng naturang source na ang dahilan ng
biglaang pag-uwi ng pamilya Gutierrez sa bansa ilang "Grabe ang naging problema nila du’n, kaya
taon na ang nakararaan ay may kinalaman sa malaking wala silang choice that time kung di ang umuwi
halagang hindi nabayaran nina Eddie at Annabelle sa na lang sa Pilipinas!
ilang kababayan natin sa Amerika.
"Ang halagang involved sa pagbebenta nila ng
"Naaalala pa ba ninyo ‘yung mga kalderong kaldero, e, hindi basta-basta, milyunan ‘yon!
ibinebenta noon nina Eddie at Annabelle sa
States? "Kaso ‘yung pinagbebentahan nila, ‘yung
halagang dapat sana, e, ibigay nila sa kompanya
"Mga mamahaling kaldero ‘yun, hindi basta- dahil porsiyentuhan lang naman sila du’n,
basta kaldero ang ibinebenta nila du’n, kaya nagastos nila!
talagang ang ganda-ganda na sana ng buhay
nilang mag-anak du’n hanggang sa dumating "Nawala ang pera, at ang balita nga sa States, e,
‘yung point na sinisingil na sila nu’ng mismong si Annabelle ang dahilan kung bakit nalubog sila
kompanya ng kaldero! noon sa utang sa States!

"Malaki ang halagang involved, milyon-milyon, "Nag-casino pala si Annabelle! Grabe raw kung
kaya nu’ng kinasuhan na sila, e kinailangan magpatalo siya, kaya pati ‘yung kinita nila sa
nilang umalis sa Amerika para bumalik na dito. pagbebenta ng mamahaling kaldero, e,
natunaw!" sabi uli ng source ng Gossip Tabloid.
"Isa si Bert Leroy, Jr. sa mga Pilipinong
nagkaroon ng malaking problema kina Eddie at Maraming Pilipino ang sinabitan doon ng mag-asawa,
Annabelle, alam ba n’yo yun? ayon pa sa source ng Gossip Tabloid, kaya ngayong may
asunto naman si Annabelle dito sa Pilipinas ay napaka-
"Ang ganda-ganda ng samahan nila nu’ng una imposibleng sa Amerika pa rin siya tatakbo.
sa Amerika, yumaman sila nang dahil sa mga
mamahaling kaldero na ibinebenta nila, kaso, "Paano siya magpupunta du’n para tuluyan
sumabit sina Eddie at Annabelle du’n sa nang manirahan, e, ang dami-dami ring Pinoy
mismong company na pinagkukunan nila ng na naghihintay sa kanya du’n para maningil sa
produkto! kanya?

"Bukod sa napakarami na nilang isinabit na "Alam n’yo ba, bukod sa galit na galit na sa
Pinoy sa Amerika dahil sa mga kalderong ‘yun, e kanila ang mga Pinoy na nandu’n, e, may mga
sumabit pa sila nang malaking halaga sa nakaabang na ring asunto para kay Annabelle.
mismong manufacturer nu’ng mga ibinebenta
nilang mamahaling kaldero! "So, malabong sa Amerika pa siya tumuloy
ngayong napapabalitang nasa abroad siya dahil
"Yun ang dahilan kung bakit bigla-biglang sa mga naghihintay na kaso sa kanya du’n.
umuwi sa Pilipinas ang pamilya ni Eddie!
"Ang alam namin, e, sa Europe nagbabalak
"Ang ikinakatwiran nilang mag-asawa noon, e pumunta ang pamilya ni Eddie.
gusto raw kasi nilang lumaking Pilipinong-
Pilipino ang kanilang mga anak, pero ang totoo, "Di ba’t ilang beses nang nagpapabalik-balik
e, napakalaki ng problemang iniwan nila sa du’n sina Ruffa. Noon pa, e, pinag-aralan na
Amerika!" mahabang simula ng source ng nina Eddie at Annabelle ang posibilidad ng mga
Gossip Tabloid. gagawin nila!

Page 6 of 9
 "Alam nila na hindi sila puwedeng mag-stay sa 1995 issue of the same tabloid where she expressed her
States dahil kalat din ang asunto nila du’n, sympathy and admiration for the latter.
bukod pa sa napakaraming Pinoy na huma-
hunting sa kanila! Notably, however, the complainants successfully
refuted the imputations during the trial. Complainants
"Kaya kung totoong nakalusot na nga si proved that they could return anytime to the United
Annabelle ngayon para makatakas siya sa States of America after the publication of the
pagkakulong, imposibleng sa States siya article,33 and that they remained on good terms with
nagpunta! the manufacturing company of the cookware.34 To the
contrary, both petitioner and Tugas failed to adduce
"Mas malaking problema ang kailangan niyang evidence to show the truth of the allegations in the
harapin sa States dahil sa perang nadispalko article despite the opportunity to do so.
nila, bukod pa sa asuntong iniwan nilang
nakatiwangwang du’n! Further worthy of mention is the admission of
petitioner before the trial court that she had very close
"Naghahanap ng sakit ng katawan si Annabelle association with then Congressman Golez and
kung sa States nga niya maisipang pumunta mayoralty candidate Joey Marquez, and that she would
ngayon para lang malusutan si Ligaya Santos at use her skills as a writer to campaign for them.
ang sintensiya sa kanya ni Judge Palattao!" Complainant Eddie Gutierrez ran against then
madiin pang pahayag ng mapagkakatiwalaang incumbent Golez for the congressional seat in
source ng Gossip Tabloid.30 Parañaque City. Petitioner testified in this wise –

A libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of Q: When you acted as writer during the
a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary; or any campaign, as you said, for Joey Marquez and
act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending Golez, of course you did not give your services
to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a for free to these candidates, were you paid?
natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of
one who is dead.31 In determining whether a statement A: I was not paid, Sir.
is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in
their entirety and should be taken in their plain and Q: You just wanted to help them, am I correct?
ordinary meaning as they would naturally be
understood by persons reading them, unless it appears A: Yes, because they are my friends, Sir.
that they were used and understood in another sense.32
Q: And you wanted them to win the election,
To say that the article, in its entirety, is not libelous thru your being a writer, is that correct?
disturbs one’s sensibilities; it would certainly prick one’s
conscience. There is evident imputation of the crime of A: Yes, Sir.
malversation (that the complainants converted for their
personal use the money paid to them by fellow Filipinos Q: You were campaigning hard for Golez and
in America in their business of distributing high-end Marquez, right?
cookware); of vices or defects for being fugitives from
the law (that complainants and their family returned to A: Right, Sir.
the Philippines to evade prosecution in America); and of
being a wastrel (that Annabelle Rama Gutierrez lost the Q: When you say hard, you wanted your
earnings from their business through irresponsible candidates to win, is it not?
gambling in casinos). The attribution was made publicly,
considering that Gossip Tabloid had a nationwide A: Yes, Sir.
circulation. The victims were identified and identifiable.
More importantly, the article reeks of malice, as it tends Q: Who was the opponent of Joey Marquez at
to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the that time?
complainants.
A: The former Mayor Olivares, Sir.
Petitioner claims that there was no malice on her part
because, allegedly, the article was merely a fair and Q: How about the opponent of Congressman
honest comment on the fact that Annabelle Rama Golez?
Gutierrez was issued a warrant of arrest for her
conviction for estafa before then Judge Palattao’s court. A: One of them is Eddie Gutierrez, Sir.
She even cited as proof of her lack of malice the
purported absence of any ill will against complainants,
Q: And the tandem of Marquez and Golez
as shown by the article she wrote about complainants’
versus the tandem of Olivares and Eddie
daughter Sharmaine Ruffa Gutierrez in the June 15,
Gutierrez, am I correct?
Page 7 of 9
 A: Actually, that was the situation at that time, right of free speech and press, that is, in utter contempt
Sir. of the rights of others and in willful disregard of the
cumbrous responsibilities inherent in it, is the eventual
Q: Of course, the tandem of Joey Marquez was self-destruction of the right and the regression of
working hard to win over their opponent, is it human society into a veritable Hobbesian state of
not? nature where life is short, nasty and brutish. Therefore,
to recognize that there can be no absolute "unrestraint"
A: Whatever their problems were, I am out. in speech is to truly comprehend the quintessence of
freedom in the marketplace of social thought and
Q: As a hard campaigner, you wanted your action, genuine freedom being that which is limned by
team to win over the other, is this correct? the freedom of others. If there is freedom of the press,
ought there not also be freedom from the press? It is in
A: Yes, Sir. this sense that self-regulation as distinguished from self-
censorship becomes the ideal mean for, as Mr. Justice
Q: Of course you understand what PRO work is, Frankfurter has warned, "[W]ithout x x x a lively sense
it includes propaganda, is that correct? of responsibility, a free press may readily become a
powerful instrument of injustice.
A: I am sorry I don’t accept PR work, Sir.
Lest we be misconstrued, this is not to diminish nor
Q: Do you understand PRO work? constrict that space in which expression freely
flourishes and operates. For we have always strongly
A: Yes, Sir, I know. maintained, as we do now, that freedom of expression
is man’s birthright – constitutionally protected and
Q: In propaganda, for your side, you promote it guaranteed, and that it has become the singular role of
as against the other, right? the press to act as its "defensor fidei" in a democratic
society such as ours. But it is also worth keeping in mind
A: Yes, Sir.35 that the press is the servant, not the master, of the
citizenry, and its freedom does not carry with it an
unrestricted hunting license to prey on the ordinary
It can be gleaned from her testimony that petitioner
citizen.38
had the motive to make defamatory imputations
against complainants. Thus, petitioner cannot, by simply
making a general denial, convince us that there was no In view of the foregoing disquisitions, the conviction of
malice on her part. Verily, not only was there malice in petitioner for libel should be upheld.
law, the article being malicious in itself, but there was
also malice in fact, as there was motive to talk ill against With respect to the penalty to be imposed for this
complainants during the electoral campaign. conviction, we note that on January 25, 2008, the Court
issued Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, entitled
Neither can petitioner take refuge in the constitutional Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in
guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press. the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases. The Circular
Although a wide latitude is given to critical utterances expresses a preference for the imposition of a fine
made against public officials in the performance of their rather than imprisonment, given the circumstances
official duties, or against public figures on matters of attendant in the cases39 cited therein in which only a
public interest, such criticism does not automatically fall fine was imposed by this Court on those convicted of
within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech. If libel. It also states that, if the penalty imposed is merely
the utterances are false, malicious or unrelated to a a fine but the convict is unable to pay the same, the
public officer’s performance of his duties or irrelevant Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary
to matters of public interest involving public figures, the imprisonment should apply.
same may give rise to criminal and civil liability. 36 While
complainants are considered public figures for being However, the Circular likewise allows the court, in the
personalities in the entertainment business, media exercise of sound discretion, the option to impose
people, including gossip and intrigue writers and imprisonment as penalty, whenever the imposition of a
commentators such as petitioner, do not have the fine alone would depreciate the seriousness of the
unbridled license to malign their honor and dignity by offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise
indiscriminately airing fabricated and malicious be contrary to the imperatives of justice.
comments, whether in broadcast media or in print,
about their personal lives.37 In the case at bench, the Court considers the public’s
speculations as to the whereabouts of Annabelle Rama
We must however take this opportunity to likewise Gutierrez with the issuance of the warrant of arrest
remind media practitioners of the high ethical standards after her initial conviction for estafa. Petitioner fueled
attached to and demanded by their noble profession. these speculations through her article. However, her
The danger of an unbridled irrational exercise of the article went overboard and exceeded the bounds of fair

Page 8 of 9
comment. This warrants her conviction. Nonetheless, in
light of the relatively wide latitude given to utterances
against public figures such as private complainants, and
consonant with Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, the
Court deems it proper to modify the penalty of
imprisonment to a fine in the amount of ₱6,000.00,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in
each case. But the award of moral damages for each of
the private complainants in the amount of ₱500,000.00,
as ordered by the trial court, should be restored on
account of the serious anxiety and the wounded
feelings suffered by complainants from the libelous
article, particularly taking into account the fact that
petitioner and the private complainants were on
relatively good terms with each other, and
complainants gave no cause or offense which could
have provoked the malicious publication.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated September 3, 2002 of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20890 is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in lieu of
imprisonment, petitioner Cristinelli S. Fermin is
sentenced to pay a fine in the amount of ₱6,000.00,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in
each case. The award of moral damages, in the amount
of ₱300,000.00 each in favor of complainants Annabelle
Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo Gutierrez, is increased to
₱500,000.00. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

Page 9 of 9