Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

010 Phil 562:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3357. March 25, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. A. W. PRAUTCH, Defendant-Appellant.

Rafael Palma and Rafael Corpus, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. LIBEL; PRESUMPTION OF MALICE. — In connection with the publication of defamatory matter, in the absence of proof to the contrary, malice is always presumed.

2. JUSTIFIABLE MOTIVES; BURDEN OF PROOF. — The burden of proving justifiable motives is upon the person responsible for the publication of the libel.

3. ID.; INTENT. — Goodness of intention is not always sufficient to justify the publication of an injurious allegation of fact. The question of justifiable motive is one which must be decided by taking into consideration not only the intention but all the circumstances connected with the particular case.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


Proceedings for libel instituted upon the following complaint:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the said accused, with malicious intent and purpose, in order to discredit the dignity of Capt. Roberto Page, of the Constabulary, and chief inspector of the Province of Oriental Negros, caused a letter written in both English and Spanish, with the headings of "The situation in Oriental Negros," written since the 3d of January of the present year, to be inserted in No. 1074 of the newspaper El Tiempo, published in Iloilo, Panay, P. I., on the 13th of January, 1903 (should be 1905), containing the following paragraphs:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘1. Complaints are on file with the provincial governor of the methods employed by Captain Page, of the Constabulary, to openly oppose the religious liberty of the people.

"‘2. Captain Page is charged with taking the president of Amblang by the scruff of the neck and forcing him to kneel down to Bishop Rooker, although the man protested that he was an Aglipayano.

"‘3. Captain page accompanied Bishop Rooker with twenty-five Constabulary soldiers; he forbade their going near the Aglipay Bishop, but ordered them to go and salute Bishop Rooker.

"‘4. I learned from other sources that one of these petitions refers to Captain Page putting his revolver to a man’s head in Bais and through fear trying to get him to denounce the wealthy Sr. Villanueva, an Aglipayano, as plotting insurrection.

"‘5. Ten of the leading persons here told me that they heard Captain Page publicly boast that Bishop Rooker would get him promoted for what he was doing, as he (Rooker) had great influence and could not get what he requested or demanded.

"‘6. Captain Page refused to allow the Constabulary soldiers to even go and see the parade, saying he did not know that it was a holiday.’"

The court below found the accused guilty of the crime of libel, defined and punished by Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, and imposed on him a fine of P500, and the costs of the proceedings. Said sentence rested on the ground that the facts imputed to Captain page are false, and that the publication thereof was made without justifiable reasons.

The injurious nature of the publication appears by a simple perusal of the same. Some of the facts therein imputed to Captain Page, for instance such as are contained in paragraphs 2 and 4, transcribed in the complaint, if true, would constitute actual crimes, punishable under the Penal Code. The defense itself does not discuss this point, but rather takes it for granted in the brief filed with this court.

Neither does the defense discuss the falsity of the imputations, or at least of some of them. The accused himself, when testifying at the trial, distinctly acknowledged that the second imputation, that Captain Page had forcibly compelled the president of Amblang to salute and kneel down to Bishop Rooker, was false. In the brief the defense says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If the evidence adduced he (the accused) has not succeeded in showing the rigorous truth of the allegations, but only a part of them, he has, however, sufficiently shown the existence of justifiable reasons."cralaw virtua1aw library

This last statement and the absence of malice in the publication constitute in the sum the exculpations alleged and maintained in the brief of the accused.

A to malice, it is a thing which the law presumes to exist in injurious publications. Section 3 of Act No. 277 provides that —

"An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the absence of such proof, the legal presumption of malice must stand. In order to establish absence of malice as a fact, it previously becomes necessary to prove that justifiable motives existed for the publication. The proposition can not be inverted. Therefore, the argument of the accused in his brief, that, it being proved that no malice existed, the existence of justifiable motives is necessarily proven, is untenable. This would amount to supposing that the legal presumption of malice could be destroyed otherwise than by proving the existence of justifiable motives, which is manifestly contrary to the clear and express provision of the law. Consequently, the whole of this question is reduced to whether or not there were justifiable motives for the publication.

With regard to this point the accused states as follows in his declaration:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The only intention I had (in publishing the letter in El Tiempo) was to promote the separation of the church and the state; it will be observe in my article that I have omitted every allusion to any other act by Captain Page, only touching the religious persecution, in the separation of the church and the estate."cralaw virtua1aw library

And further on he adds that the object of the publication was to call the attention of the Governor-General and other citizens to the religious abuses.

In the first place, it is not true that the letter in question refers solely to the so-called religious abuses supposed to have been committed by Captain Page. Thus, for instance, the fact stated in paragraph 6 of the complaint, that Captain Page did not permit the Constabulary soldiers to go and see the parade on Rizal Day, telling them that he did not acknowledge said day as a holidays, has nothing to do with the religious question, nor with the separation of the church and state.

In the second place, the desire to promote the separation of the church and the state, supposing that such was the only motive that led the accused to publish the letter in question, does not per se constitute a motive sufficiently justifiable for the publication. The goodness of the intention is not always sufficient by itself to justify the publication of an injurious fact; thus the goodness of the end is not a sufficient motive to warrant the employment of illicit means to obtain it. The existence of justifiable motives is a question which has to be decided by taking into consideration not only the intention of the author of the publication but all the other circumstances of each particular case.

A careful examination of the cause shows that the accused did not have the slightest reason for publishing several of the facts imputed to Captain Page. To begin with, there is not the least evidence that the latter performed the acts which the accused attributes to him in paragraphs 5 and 6 transcribed in the complaint; neither does he prove, and this is of great importance, that someone had informed him that these deeds were executed by Captain Page. It can not therefore be understood what grounds the accused had for imputing such acts to Captain Page, and much less for making the allegations publicly.

The same may be said of the fact stated in paragraph 2 of the complaint. In the original of this paragraph, in the English text, the force and violence said to have been exercised by Captain Page on the person of the president of Amblang is illustrated by the statement that he caught the latter by the scruff of the neck and compelled him to kneel down to Bishop Rooker, Exhibit A of the defense, which is certified copy of the record written and subscribed by several municipal presidents of the Province of Oriental Negros, regarding certain petitions that they had resolved to submit to the Governor-General, which record has apparently served the accused as the source of information in connection with this fact, contains only the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When Mgr. Rooker passed through Amblang, Captain Page made use of the moral force to compel the municipal president to go and salute the Roman Bishop, in order that said bishop might thus gain influence with the residents, on seeing that he was saluted by their president."cralaw virtua1aw library

The president of Amblang himself does not say other than that Captain page invited him to salute Bishop Rooker at the covenant, using the following words: "Come on, president; if you don’t care to go, suit yourself." Nothing in this justifies the charge that Captain Page compelled the president of Amblang by means of force and catching him by the scruff of the neck to salute Bishop Rooker, and to kneel down to him; and much less, as a consequence, the publication of such an imputation.

Nor had anyone informed the accused that Captain Page had threatened a person in Bais with a revolver in order to compel him to denounce the wealthy landowner Sr. Villanueva as an Aglipayano and promotor of a revolutionary movement, as stated in paragraph 4 of the complaint. What appears from Exhibit B and the testimony of the witnesses of the defense is that Captain Page threatened and maltreated with a revolver a certain Fernando Alcasa, a man supposedly guilty of breaking into the house of a certain Montenegro, to make him declare that he had been induced thereto by the Villanuevas. As it may easily be observed, this has nothing to do with compelling him to denounce Villanueva as an Aglipayano and promoter of a revolutionary movement. There is here at least an evident misstatement of the facts, made probably with the intention of connecting them in some way with the religious question which the accused to shield himself.

The least that can be said of this is that which stated in the judgment appealed from, namely:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the degree of care which he employed to investigate the truth of the complaints so injurious to another person, such as these complaints might be to Captain Page, . . .was not sufficient to warrant their publication in the manner in which he did it."cralaw virtua1aw library

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the accused. So ordered.

Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Carson, J., concurs in the result.

Arellano, C.J., and Johnson, J., dissent.

Separate Opinions


TORRES, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I think the accused should be acquitted, and therefore I dissent from the majority opinion.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-4447 March 6, 1908 - MURPHY v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L-3880 March 9, 1908 - TEOPISTA CASTRO v. ANTONIO MARTINEZ GALLEGOS

    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-4085 March 12, 1908 - CARLS PALANCA TANGUINLAY v. FRANCISCO G. QUIROS

    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-4209 March 19, 1908 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES

    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-4241 March 20, 1908 - AGUSTIN G. GAVIERES v. ADMIN. F THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LUISA

    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3762 March 27, 1908 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ALEJANDRO AMECHAZURRA

    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. L-3007 March 30, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. L-4257 March 31, 1908 - SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO v. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL.

    010 Phil 707