Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > October 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 9716 October 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN V. RAMOS

028 Phil 219:



[G.R. No. 9716. October 13, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN V. RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

Felix Ferrer, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Avanceña, for Appellee.


1. LIBEL AND SLANDER; PUBLICATION; LETTER SENT IN A CLOSED ENVELOPE. — The sending of a letter containing libelous matter in a closed envelope to the offended party does not in itself constitute libel, for lack of publication. (Lopez v. Delgado, 8 Phil. Rep., 26.) If, however, the sender and writer of such letter should publish the contents of the same, and the facts stated therein were libelous, he would, from the moment of said publication, be guilty of the crime of libel.



This defendant was charged with the crime of libel. He was arrested, arraigned, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of P60, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The complaint

"That on or about October 23, 1913, in the municipality of Nueva Caceres, Ambos Camarines, the said accused, Juan V. Ramos, for the purpose of assailing the honor and reputation of Antonio Carrascoso, a pharmacist and resident of Nueva Caceres, Ambos Camarines, did maliciously, criminally, and unlawfully write and publish a letter addressed to the said Antonio Carrascoso, which letter contains a scandalous defamation and libel about and concerning the said Antonio Carrascoso and is of the following

"‘NUEVA CACERES, A. C., October 23, 1913-4 p. m.


"‘Nueva Caceres, Ambos Camarines.

"‘SIR: Trustworthy persons have informed me that you have propagated the report that I have contracted marriage in Albay with a distinguished lady whom I deem to be worthy of all respect. The publication of such a coarse statement was undoubtedly made by you with the mischievous intention and base purpose of thus affixing my name on the pillory of ridicule. That you have succeeded in attaining your stupid design, is evidently shown by the fact that during the short time that has elapsed since I returned here, friends and acquaintances have hastened to annoy me with their felicitations and congratulations, which, lacking as they do lack a true cause, hold me up to humiliating dirision. This is not the first time that you concerned yourself with my humble person. On another occasion, immediately after my departure for Manila, you also committed the impropriety of spreading the report in this city that I had been called by the higher authorities to be personally notified of nothing less than my removal from the service. This conduct, this behavior of yours, gives me a right to demand of you a public and sincere explanation. For this purpose I summon you, as I have summoned several persons who have been deceived by you, to appear without fail in the establishment El Aguila, of Mr. Mendez formerly, now of Mr. Arnau, at 5.40 p. m. to-day, Thursday, October 23, 1913. If you fail to appear at the appointed place at the time indicated, I shall have the right to call you a coward and a low vile scoundrel.

"‘Very respectfully,

(Sgd.) JUAN V. RAMOS.’"

From the sentence of the lower court the defendant appealed and made the following assignments of

"(1) The court erred in sustaining the action brought through means of the complaint, by holding that there was publicity.

"(2) The court erred in not considering the motives that induced the accused to write the letter which caused the filing of the complaint.

"(3) The court erred in finding the accused guilty.

"(4) The court erred in sentencing the accused."cralaw virtua1aw library

With reference to the first assignment of error, it may be said that the letter copied in the complaint above, was sent by a messenger to the offended party in a closed envelope. Even granting that the letter was libelous, the sending of it to the offended party in a closed envelope did not amount to a publication of its contents. (Lopez v. Delgado, 8 Phil. Rep., 26.) The sending of libelous matter in a sealed envelope, by a messenger, to the libeled person, is not such a publication of the libel as will support an action under the provisions of Act No. 277. The proof shows, however, in accordance with the request of said letter, that the offended party should meet the defendant at the office of El Aguila, that he (the defendant) went to the said office, at the time stated in the letter (5.40 p.m.) , together with a number of his friends and, while there waiting for the offended party, gave copies of said letter to his friends, thereby publishing the same. He attempted to show that the letters which he distributed to his friends in said office, were not exact copies of the letter which he sent to the offended party. He alleged that the words "hombre cobarde, canalla, bajo y ruin" were not in the letters which he distributed. The proof shows, however (Exhibit 3, p. 18), that some of the copies which he distributed did contain said words.

The sending of the letter in a closed envelope to the offended party, in itself did not constitute libel. (Lopez v. Delgado, 8 Phil. Rep., 26.) The very moment, however, that the contents of the letter were published and were made known to a third person, that very moment he became guilty of the crime of libel, provided the words used in said letter were libelous. In our opinion, the words used were libelous, if they were not true. There was no attempt on the part of the defendant to show that they were true. The evident purpose of the defendant in calling a number of his friends together in the office of El Aguila, and then and there to publish its contents, was to do the offended party injury in his good name and reputation in the community in which he lived. The record shows that the same messenger who carried said letter from the defendant to the offended party, carried a letter containing the answer or reply of the offended party to said letter and the same was delivered to the defendant while he and his companions were waiting at the office of El Aguila (See Exhibit 2). Said letter (Exhibit 2) was an explanation on the part of the offended party of some of the things contained in the letter of the defendant. Notwithstanding the explanation given by the offended party, the defendant insisted upon giving publicity to the contents of his letter.

A careful examination of the evidence brought to this court fails to disclose any reason for modifying the sentence of the lower court. The same is, therefore, hereby affirmed, with costs.

Torres, Moreland and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

CARSON, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I agree with the confirmation of the judgment of conviction, but I think the penalty should be reduced to a mere nominal fine.

Arellano, C.J., dissents.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

October-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 7760 October 1, 1914 - E. M. WRIGHT v. MANILA ELECTRIC R. R. & LIGHT CO.

    028 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 9600 October 1, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO GACUTAN

    028 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 9609, 9610 & 9611 October 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIA AVILLAR

    028 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 8231 October 3, 1914 - PROSPERO K. ALAFRIZ v. PIA MINA

    028 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 9791 October 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE F. SOTELO

    028 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 9378 October 6, 1914 - BENITO RABAJANTE v. P. M. MOIR, ET AL.

    028 Phil 161


    028 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 9679 October 6, 1914 - MATEO LABIANO v. W. E. McMAHON, ET AL.

    028 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 9855 October 6, 1914 - CHUA SHUN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    028 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 7690 October 9, 1914 - CHUA DOC DE v. ARTADI & COMPANY

    028 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 7944 October 9, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. MASTER OF THE S. S. "TEAN"

    028 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. 8611 October 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO GARING

    028 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. 8727 October 13, 1914 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. J. MC-MICKING, ET AL.

    028 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 9387 October 13, 1914 - TIBURCIA DE LIZA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    028 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 9415 October 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ONG TO

    028 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 9716 October 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN V. RAMOS

    028 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 9247 October 15, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GENARO PASCA

    028 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 9030 October 16, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO ROSALES, ET AL.

    028 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. 9772 October 16, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO SERRANO, ET AL.

    028 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 9305 October 17, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR VITUG

    028 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 9459 October 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO CAMARA

    028 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 9784 October 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ONG SHIU

    028 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9197 October 22, 1914 - HERMOGENA SANTOS v. MIGUEL ROBLEDO ET AL.

    028 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8715 October 24, 1914 - MARIANO VELOSO v. LUCIA MARTINEZ

    028 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 8938 October 24, 1914 - PETRONA VILORIA v. ESPERANZA AQUINO

    028 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 8147 October 26, 1914 - G. URRUTIA & CO. v. AMALIA MORENO, ET AL.

    028 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 9183 October 28, 1914 - EVARISTA SINAPILO v. PETRA GRACIA

    028 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 9737 October 28, 1914 - HO NINA, ET AL. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    028 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. 9444 October 29, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SOFRONIO DE LA CRUZ

    028 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 9537 October 29, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FILOMENO CASSION, ET AL.

    028 Phil 285


    028 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9915 October 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CHIEN SUEY

    028 Phil 300