Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1902 > November 1902 Decisions > G.R. No. 927 November 8, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JAIME UBIÑANA

001 Phil 471:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 927. November 8, 1902. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. JAIME UBIÑANA, Defendant-Appellant.

Alfredo Chicote, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee, and Daniger & Olbes, for Private Prosecutor.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; LIBEL. — The motive for writing matter defamatory of a husband in an illicit correspondence with the wife soliciting her to commit adultery is not a justifiable motive such as will rebut the presumption of malice.

2. ID.; ID.; PUBLICATION. — The sending to a wife of an illicit letter defamatory of her husband is a sufficient publication to constitute the crime of libel.


D E C I S I O N


LADD, J. :


The alleged libel upon the private prosecutor was contained in a letter which the evidence shows was written by the defendant in the course of an illicit correspondence with the private prosecutor’s wife, and which was sent to her by the defendant, read by her, and finally discovered by her husband in her possession. We do not understand that it is claimed by counsel for the defendant that the language of the letter is not defamatory, but appears to be claimed that the "private, confidential, and secret" character of the letter is sufficient to rebut the presumption that the publication was malicious.

The new libel law, under which this prosecution was brought, attaches the presumption of malice to an injurious publication, "if no justifiable motive for making it is shown." (Act of the United States Philippine Commission, No. 277, sec. 3.) Without undertaking to state what motives may be deemed justifiable under this act, it is sufficient with reference to the present case to say that it would involve a contradiction in terms to hold that the letter in question — a solicitation to commit adultery — was published by the defendant with justifiable motives. There is nothing in the case to rebut the presumption of malice which arises from the mere fact of publication.

It is further claimed that it was not shown that the defendant parted with the custody of the letter "under such circumstances that as a natural and logical consequence it might be read by a third person." Section 5 of the Libel Act provides that "to sustain a charge of publishing a libel, . . . it is enough that the accused knowingly parted with the immediate custody of the libel under circumstances which exposed it to be read or seen by any other person than himself." The circumstances of the present case meet these conditions fully.

An examination of the record shows that the statement of counsel that the court below did not permit the defendant to testify at the trial in his own behalf, upon which the first assignment of error is based, is not true in point of fact. The same is the case with reference to the statement upon which the second assignment of error is based, viz, that the court permitted the wife of the private prosecutor to testify without the previous consent of both spouses.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to be at the rate of one day for every 12 1/2 pesetas, such imprisonment not to exceed six months in all. The record will be returned to the court below for the execution of the judgment. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Smith, Willard and Mapa, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1902 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 879 November 3, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO BALUYUT ET AL.

    001 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 959 November 3, 1902 - JUAN ISMAEL v. MANUEL GANZON

    001 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 947 November 4, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. DONATO SALANDANAN ET AL.

    001 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 964 November 4, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO ORTIZ ET AL.

    001 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 922 November 8, 1902 - TRINIDAD H. PADRO DE TAVERA v. VICENTE GARCIA VALDEZ

    001 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 927 November 8, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JAIME UBIÑANA

    001 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 985 November 10, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. ANACLETO SANTILLANA ET AL.

    001 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 885 November 11, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO DE GUZMAN

    001 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 951 November 13, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SALANDANAN

    001 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 1064 November 13, 1902 - A. S. WATSON & CO., LTD. v. RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    001 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 880 November 14, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN SARMIENTO

    001 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 552 November 17, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. UI MATIAO

    001 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 956 November 18, 1902 - FRANCISCO IRURETA GOYENA v. ILDEFONSO TAMBUNTING

    001 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 855 November 21, 1902 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. VICENTE BENEDICTO

    001 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 955 November 21, 1902 - RAMON CHAVES v. RAMON NERY LINAN

    001 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 1066 November 22, 1902 - SITIA TECO v. HEIRS OF BALBINO VENTURA HOCORMA

    001 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 493 November 25, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO ACUÑA ET AL.

    001 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 968 November 26, 1902 - FRANCISCO M. GO-QUICO v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    001 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 1084 November 26, 1902 - JOHN FISCHER v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    001 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 1105 November 26, 1902 - IN RE: R. W. CARR, ET AL.

    001 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. 989 November 28, 1902 - JOHN GRUINDROD v. LIZARRAGA HERMANOS

    001 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 936 November 29, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO COLOCAR ET AL.

    001 Phil 516