Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > May 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22250 May 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULOGIO BALAO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22250. May 22, 1968.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EULOGIO BALAO, Defendant-Appellee.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Frine C. Zaballero and Solicitor Camilo D. Quiazon for Appellant.

Ernesto R. Pangalangan for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; MOTION TO QUASH; INFORMATION FOR SLANDER MAY BE QUASHED BEFORE TRIAL WHERE COURT HEARS EVIDENCE AND IS SATISFIED OF RELEVANCY OF ALLEGED DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS. — In the trial of a civil case for damages arising from libel, the plaintiff uttered allegedly defamatory statements against defendant in said civil case. Said defendant filed a charge of grave slander against the plaintiff, now accused-defendant who moved to quash the information on the ground that his statements were covered by the rule of privilege; the trial court granted the motion to quash hearing.

The lower court did not err in quashing the information even before trial because evidence in support of the accused’s claim of privilege was allowed to enter the record without the objection of the prosecution and the court considered the same in finding that the statements came within the rule on privilege.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE DISTINCT FROM DUQUE v. SANTIAGO, L-16916, Nov. 29, 1962. — In Duque v. Santiago, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of the accused’s motion to quash because the issue therein of whether or not the comments complained of were libelous was a matter that should be raised as a defense in the trial. There are distinctions between that case and this case. In that case, the issue of when the question of privilege should be invoked was squarely raised in the trial court relative to the motion to quash and the court ruled that such question should be raised at the trial. Here, the question is raised for the first time on appeal. In that case, no evidence was considered by the trial court regarding the privileged character of the libelous statements because the prosecution immediately challenged the propriety of such evidence in a motion to quash. Here, the evidence supporting the accused’s claim of privilege was allowed, without objection from the prosecution, to enter the record. From such evidence, the trial court found that the alleged defamatory statements came within the mantle of privilege as they were relevant or pertinent to the subject matter of inquiry.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Because of an open letter published in a local paper on November 4, 1959, herein defendant-appellee Eulogio Balao, then a Senator, filed two actions against the writer, Gregorio Co, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City). One action was criminal in nature and charged the offense of libel; the other was civil and sought recovery of damages. At the trial of the civil case Senator Balao took the witness stand, and in answer to certain questions propounded to him gave some statements which were claimed to be defamatory and on the basis of which Co subsequently filed a complaint for grave slander against him.

The information lodged in the Quezon City Court on September 6, 1962 reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned Assistant City Fiscal accuses EULOGIO BALAO of the crime of Grave Slander, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 13th day of March, 1962, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without any justifiable cause, utter and proffer, in the presence of several persons, the following slanderous words of a serious and insulting manner, against Gregorio Co, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I was put to shame because I was being attacked by a known extortionist, . . . and a man of no consequence because he has no visible means of living;"

"I do not invite criminals;"

"I cannot avoid felicitations even to criminals. At least, it is a gentlemen’s attitude even towards criminals;"

which words and expressions were directed to the said Gregorio Co, thereby casting dishonor, discredit and contempt upon the latter, to his damage and prejudice, in such amount as may be awarded to him under the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

On November 21, 1962 the defendant moved to quash the information on the ground that the statements attributed to him were covered by the rule of absolute privilege. The prosecution opposed, and the motion was denied. A motion for reconsideration was filed and was similarly opposed. In the defendant’s rejoinder to the opposition he attached as evidence a copy each of the complaint in the civil case and of the information in the criminal case against Gregorio Co, as well as a portion of the transcript of his (Balao’s) testimony at the trial of the civil case.

On August 20, 1963, the Quezon City court issued the order of dismissal now appealed from, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"After considering the "Motion for Reconsideration", the "Opposition" thereto, the "Manifestation" and "Motion" presented by the defense counsel, and the "Rejoinder to the Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Quash", and the Private Prosecutor having been given 10 days from July 31, 1963, within which to file any pleading thereto, this Court, after going over all the pleadings, hereby reconsiders its Order dated December 28, 1962, and hereby DISMISSES this case with costs de oficio."cralaw virtua1aw library

"SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

Evidently the Quezon City Court, in dismissing the case, took into account the evidence presented in support of the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and in the light thereof concluded that the alleged defamatory statements were covered by the mantle of privilege.

In this appeal by the prosecution the Solicitor General poses only one issue: that a motion to quash hypothetically admits the allegations in the information and merely challenges their sufficiency to charge an offense, and that the privileged character of the defamatory statements cannot be determined from such allegations and hence should be raised at the trial. The case of Duque v. Hon. Amado Santiago (L-16916, Nov. 29, 1962) is relied upon.

In the cited case this Court did uphold the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to quash an information for libel on the ground that whether or not the comments complained of as libelous were privileged was a matter which should be raised as a defense at the trial. There are demonstrable distinctions between that case and the one before us. There the issue of when the question of privilege should be invoked was squarely raised in the lower court in connection with the motion to quash, and was ruled upon by said court to the effect that the question should be invoked at the trial. Furthermore, in the Duque case no evidence was considered by the court regarding the privileged character of the alleged libelous statements, since the prosecution immediately challenged the propriety of such evidence in a motion to quash. In the present case, the question is raised for the first time on appeal and the evidence in support of the defendant’s claim of privilege was allowed to go into the record without objection on the part of the prosecution. The lower court did not err therefore, in taking such evidence into consideration.

The Solicitor General has limited his brief to the procedural aspect of the order of dismissal, and is silent as to the question of whether or not, in the setting in which the statements of the defendant were uttered, that is, while he was testifying in court as the plaintiff himself in the civil case for recovery of damages by reason of the libel, and considering the allegations in his complaint and the questions propounded to him, those statements were pertinent and relevant to the subject of the inquiry so as to constitute privileged communication. The lower court, in quashing the information, ruled affirmatively on the question, and since the burden to show its error rests on the appellant and no such showing has been made, we find no reason to decree a reversal.

We have also gone over the brief filed by the private prosecutor, although in criminal cases on appeal it is only the Solicitor-General who represents the People, and we have found no sufficient showing either to overcome the conclusion of the lower court and sustain a finding that the statements given by the defendant in the course of his testimony and reproduced in the information had no relevancy or pertinence to the matters subject of his own complaint.

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., is on official leave.




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






May-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25668 May 2, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN JUGILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22005 May 3, 1968 - JESUSA LACSON VDA. DE ARROYO, ET AL. v. EL BEATERIO DEL SANTISSIMO ROSARIO DE MOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26065 May 3, 1968 - GERONIMO P. ZALDIVAR v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21743 May 4, 1968 - FEDERICO CAÑETE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23458 May 4, 1968 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. NATIONAL SHIPYARDS EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24264 May 4, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19829 May 4, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO COKENG

  • G.R. No. L-24538 May 4, 1968 - IN RE: PONCIANO B. FLORES v. ROSALINA SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 May 7, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25345 May 13, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO GARCELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24247 May 13, 1968 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ACTG. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-21583 and L-21591-92 May 20, 1968 - DANIEL BULANTE v. CHU LIANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23758 May 20, 1968 - MAXIMINA OYOD DE GARCES, ET AL. v. ESMERALDA BROCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24983 May 20, 1968 - FLORENTINO GENATO, ET AL. v. FELISA GENATO DE LORENZO

  • G.R. No. L-24560 May 21, 1968 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20952 May 22, 1968 - IN RE: CHUA UAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22250 May 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULOGIO BALAO

  • G.R. No. L-22320 May 22, 1968 - MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ, ET AL. v. GREGORIO LANTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23640 May 22, 1968 - REMEDIOS MALUPA VDA. DE LAYAG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24192 May 22, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25308 May 22, 1968 - ELISEO EGUIA DUMAPIG v. GERONIMO R. MARAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25819 May 22, 1968 - VITALIANO B. VALDES v. LUCIO C. GUTIERREZ, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27252 May 22, 1968 - FELIPE IMPERIAL v. ROMAN CATHOLIC OF ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20891 May 23, 1968 - TOMAS B. TADEO v. ROMULO VISPERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24665 May 23, 1968 - TIBURCIO ALCOBER, ET AL. v. HONORATO GARCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24805 May 23, 1968 - IN RE: YAP PUEY ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25165 May 23, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REFUGIO DEVARAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23017 May 23, 1968 - LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DEL DANAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24173 May 23, 1968 - PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24410 May 23, 1968 - BERNARDA NAZAL v. FELICIANO BELMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22347 May 27, 1968 - FILIPINAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22611 May 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22943 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: TEH SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23056 May 27, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24280 May 27, 1968 - EUNARIA B. VDA. DE GUILAS, ET AL. v. ANANIAS DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24564 May 27, 1968 - AMADO L. MENDOZA v. RODRIGUEZ & COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24581 May 27, 1968 - MIGUEL PEREZ RUBIO v. SAMUEL REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24772 May 27, 1968 - RUPERTO G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. FlLIPINAS INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-24800 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: PIO NERIA v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-26077 May 27, 1968 - SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26797 May 27, 1968 - REYNALDO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. ARTURO JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-27598 May 27, 1968 - ELISA MEDINA CUE v. PILAR DOLLA

  • G.R. No. L-24288 May 28, 1968 - LEONOR MANUEL CASTILLO UDAN v. QUIRICO C. AMON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24484 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON C. NARCISO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25942 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-25997 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICA ANINO

  • G.R. No. L-27951 May 28, 1968 - PABLO C. SANIDAD v. CRESCENCIANO L. SAQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28955 May 28, 1968 - USO DAN AGUAM v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19867 May 29, 1968 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CALSONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20322 May 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22030 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO ROLDAN

  • G.R. No. L-22426 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PELAGIO CONDEMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23021 May 29, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. MARIANO RIVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24490 May 29, 1968 - CIRIACO LANDA v. FRANCISCO TOBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24664 May 29, 1968 - CORAZON ALEGRE, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24677 May 29, 1968 - YAP TECK SUY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25551 May 29, 1968 - IN RE: CHAN DE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26364 May 29, 1968 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ET AL.