Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 177268 (Judge Adoracion G. Angeles v. Ma. Cristina A. Vistan). - On July 10, 1999, ABS-CBN Channel 2's news program Magandang Gabi Bayan (MGB) featured the segment "Your Honor..! Guilty or Not Guilty?" wherein respondent narrated how her aunt (herein petitioner) maltreated her and her other relatives who served as house helpers, by not providing them enough food and subjecting them to inhuman treatment. Consequently, an information dated April 6, 2000 for libel was filed against respondent, alleging that on or about the 10^th day of July 1999, in the Municipality of Guiguinto, Province of Bulacan, respondent did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with the principal purpose of besmirching and impeaching the honesty, virtue and reputation of petitioner to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, appear in ABS-CBN, Magandang Gabi Bayan and uttered certain defamatory remarks, when in truth and in fact, the petitioner has never been as such, which statements are malicious.

On September 17, 2003, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 16 convicted respondent for libel and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay petitioner P250,000.00 moral damages and P60,000.00 attorney's fees. On motion by petitioner, the RTC, per Order dated January 5, 2004, increased the award of moral damages to P1,000,000.00 and, additionally, granted P250,000.00 exemplary damages.

On December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals (CA) acquitted respondent of libel and revoked and nullified any pending warrants of arrest issued against her in relation to the case. As the CA denied her motion for reconsideration in the Resolution dated March 30, 2007, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging that the CA gravely abused its discretion in taking cognizance over respondent's appeal even if she was a fugitive from justice; in ruling that the Provincial Prosecutor and the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan have no jurisdiction over the case and the person of the respondent; in acquitting respondent for the crime of libel; and in not awarding her civil indemnity and damages.

The petition should be dismissed. Section 21, Article III of the Constitution, in relation to Sec. 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. A judgment of acquittal cannot be reopened, absent a grave abuse of discretion or a denial of due process to the State, The rule against double jeopardy proscribes an appeal from a judgment of acquittal. If said judgment is assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the petitioner must prove that the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A judgment rendered with grave abuse of discretion or without due process is void, does not exist in legal contemplation and, thus, cannot be the source of an acquittal.^[1] Petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the challenged decision and resolution.

Moreover, the petition does not raise issues that can invalidate the CA's verdict of acquittal. Despite promulgation in absentia, the CA correctly gave due course to respondent's appeal. Since the subject libel suit did not arise from the discharge of petitioner's official functions as a judge, but as a private individual, the same may be filed in the RTC of the province where she actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense.^[2] Hence, being a resident of Guiguinto, Bulacan, the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan has jurisdiction over the case. Even assuming that there was defamation, apart from the requisite publication and identification of the victim, the concurrent element of malice on the part of the respondent was not proven.^[3] The Court thus affirms the respondent's acquittal, not due to lack of jurisdiction by the RTC of Bulacan over the case, but for failure of the prosecution to prove the existence of malice. Neither would petitioner's claim that she should be entitled to civil indemnity and damages prosper. (Abad, J., no part, former counsel to a party in a related case; Perez, J., designated as an additional member per raffle dated June 15, 2011.)

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152532, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 137, 163-164.

^[2] Agbayani v. Sayo, 178 Phil. 579 (1979).

^[3] Dionisio Lopez y Aberasturi v. People of the Philippines and Salvador G. Escalante, Jr., G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011.