SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 150256 - March 25, 2004]

CATALINO P. ARAFILES, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., ROMY MORALES, MAX BUAN, JR., and MANUEL C. VILLAREAL, JR., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Petitioner, Catalino P. Arafiles, seeks a review of the July 31, 2001 Decision¹ of the Court of Appeals dismissing his complaint for damages against respondents Philippine Journalists, Inc., Romy Morales, Max Buan, Jr., and Manuel C. Villareal, Jr.

About 2 a.m. on April 14, 1987, while respondent Morales, a reporter of Peoples Journal Tonight, was at the Western Police District (WPD) Headquarters along United Nations Avenue, Manila, Emelita Despuig (Emelita), an employee of the National Institute of Atmospheric Sciences (NIAS), lodged a complaint against petitioner, a NIAS director, for forcible abduction with rape and forcible abduction with attempted rape before the then on duty Patrolman Benito Chio at the General Assignments Section of the headquarters.²

In the presence of Morales, Emelita executed a sworn statement³ narrating the events surrounding the reported offenses committed against her by petitioner. The pertinent portions of her sworn statement are reproduced hereunder:

T: Ano ang dahilan at ikaw ay naririto ngayon sa aming tanggapan at nagbibigay ng isang malaya at kusang loob na salaysay?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A: Para po magsuplong, tungkol sa karumaldumal naginawa sa akin ni Director Catalino P. Arafiles ng PAG-ASA.

T: Kailan at saan ito nangyari?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A: Noong hong March 14, 1987, diyan ho sa Plaza Miranda ako sapilitan isinakay sa kotse niya at itinuloy sa Flamingo hotel bandang alas pagitan ng 5:30 at 6:00 ng hapon.

T: Kailan naman ang sumunod na pagtatangka sa puri mo si Direktor Arafiles?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

S: Kagabi ho. Bandang alas 9:00 ng gabi.

T: Sa ikaliliwanag ng pagsisiyasat na ito maari bang isalaysay mo sa akin sa isang maikling talata kung paano nangyari ang ipinagsusumbong mong ito?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

S Kagagaling ko lang po sa aking klase sa Feati University noong March 14, 1987, bandang alas 5:45 ng hapon, humigit kumulang, habang ako ay naghihintay ng sasakyan pauwi mula sa Plaza Miranda ng may tumigil sa sasakyan sa tabi ko, at bigla na lang po akong hinaltak ni Direktor Arafiles papasok sa loob ng kotse niya at may ipina-amoy sa akin na nasa tissue na kulay yellow at bigla na lamang akong naghina at nahilo. Sabay din ho sa pagpapa-amoy niya sa akin ang pagtutok niya sa akin ng isang kutsilyo, at sabi sa akin ay huwag daw akong makulit tapos ay pinatakbo na niya ang kotse niya. Pamaya-maya ay nararamdaman kong karga-karga niya ako pa-akyat sa isang hagdanan. Tapos ibinaba ako sa isang kamang naroroon at akoy unti-unti niyang hinuhubaran. Pamaya-maya ho ay pinaghahalikan po niya ako at nararamdaman ko rin ang mga kamay niya sa mga maseselan na parte ng katawan ko, pero wala akong sapat na lakas para pigilin siya o sumigaw man lamang. Nagawa niyang makuha ang aking pagka-babae noong gabing iyon at nararamdaman kong masakit na masakit ang buong katawan ko. Tinakot niya ako na huwag magsumbong sa mga kapatid ko at sa mga maykapangyarihan at kung hindi ay papatayin daw ako at tatanggalin pa sa trabaho at pati mga kapatid ko ay papatayin daw po. Binibigyan ako ng pera pero ayaw kung tanggapin pero pilit niyang inilagay sa bag ko at ng tingnan ko ay P55.00 lang. Pagkatapos ay hinila na niya akong pababa at pilit ding pinasakay sa kotse niya at doon ako pinababa sa isang lugar na maraming dumadaan ng biyaheng Quiapo at sumakay na lamang ako ng jeep pauwi. Kagabi naman po, bandang alas-9:00 ng gabi, sa may kanto ng United Nations Ave. at Taft Ave., Ermita, Mla., habang hinihintay ko ang pinsan ko na umihi lang matapos akong bumili ng gamot ng tumigil na naman sa tapat ko ang kotse ni Director. Bigla na lamang niya akong hinila papasok sa kotse sabay tutok sa akin ng kutsilyo at sabi sa akin ay huwag na raw akong papalag, total ay butas na raw ako. Sa takot ko ay hindi ako nakakibo at itinuloy din ako sa Flamingo hotel. Ng hinuhubaran na niya ako ay bigla na lamang nag-buzzer tapos naka-usap niya yong bellboy na nagsabi sa kanya na may naghahanap daw sa akin o sa amin dalawa na nakakita sa paghaltak niya sa akin. Ng umakyat sa itaas yong bellboy ay nag-usap sila sandali tapos nakita ko pinagbibigyan niya ng pera yong bellboy at yong guwardiya. Tapos ay doon kami bumaba sa likod na sa tingin ko ay fire escape at nakalabas kami ng hotel tapos doon ako ibinaba sa isang lugar na hindi ko rin matandaan kong saan at doon na lang ako kumuha ng taxi at nagpahatid ako sa Pasay City Police ngunit dito rin ako itinuro.⁴ (Underscoring supplied)ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

Following the execution by Emelita of her sworn statement, Patrolman Chio made the following entry in the Police Blotter which was perused by Morales:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

280

11:00 PM

4/13/87 PAT. BENITO CHIO ON DUTY

2:00 AM 4/14/87 Subject Emelita Despuig y Puaso reported and personally came to this office that she was abducted by a certain Catalino P. Arafiles and alledgely (sic) rape (sic) last March 14, 1987 in a motel in Ermita. The undersigned made a referral to Medico-legal for Physical/Genital Exam. B. Chio.⁵

Morales thereupon personally interviewed Emelita for the purpose of reporting the same in the next issue of Peoples Journal Tonight.⁶ By his claim, he, after the interview, tried to contact Arafiles at the NIAS office to verify Emelitas story but failed, the office having already closed.⁷

Morales then wrote an account about Emelitas complaint and submitted it to his editor.⁸

That same day, April 14, 1987, Morales report appeared as headline on Peoples Journal Tonight reading:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

GOVT EXEC RAPES COED

By ROMY MORALES

A PRETTY coed, working as a grant-in-aid scholar at a Manila university and as an office worker at a government office in Quezon City, was raped by her boss, a government agency director, last March 15, but afraid to lose her job and of being harmed she chose to keep her ordeal to herself.

Last night, the government man, a director of the National Institute of Atmospheric Science, a branch of PAGASA, again abducted the girl after following her around, forcing her into his car and locking her up in a Malate motel.

This time, however, the girl was not to be raped as easily as the first time, when the man used chloroform in forcing her into submission.

The girl fought like a tigress, alerting roomboys at the Flamingo Motel at corner Carolina and Quirino Ave. Perhaps as a ploy, motel personnel called up the room and told the man some Capcom soldiers were waiting for them outside.

The call saved the girl from being raped the second time around.

Her abductor immediately left the motel, with the girl in tow, and then dropped her off somewhere in Ermita.

When the man had gone, the girl took a taxi and went straight to the Western Police District and filed a complaint.

The girl, 20-year-old Emilita Arcillano (not her real name), said she was first raped last March 15 by her boss whom she identified as a certain Director Catalino Arafiles.

She recalled that while waiting for a ride at Plaza Miranda, Arafiles alighted from his Volkswagen Beetle, dragged her inside and then pressed a cotton with chloroform on her mouth and nose.

When she regained consciousness she was already inside the Flamingo Motel, already raped, she said.

She said Arafiles told her not to report the matter or she would lose her job and she and her family would be harmed.

When the act was to be repeated last night, Emilita decided to fight. "Nanlaban ako at nagsisigaw at sinabi kong mabuti pang patayin na lang niya ako," Emilita told Pat. Benito Chio of WPD General Assignments Section.

She said the suspect abducted her at the corner of Taft Ave. and United Nations Ave. at about 9:15 last night.

When Arafiles was told Capcom soldiers were waiting for them outside the Flamingo Motel, he allegedly paid P100 each to four roomboys to help him go out through a side gate.

The police will pick up Arafiles for questioning today.⁹

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

About a year following the publication of above-quoted report or on April 13, 1988, petitioner instituted a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against respondents for damages¹⁰ arising therefrom.

In his Complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-53399, petitioner alleged that on account of the "grossly malicious and overly sensationalized reporting in the news item" prepared by respondent Morales, edited by respondent Buan, Jr., allowed for publication by respondent Villareal, Jr. as president of Philippine Journalists, Inc., and published by respondent Philippine Journalists, Inc., aspersions were cast on his character; his reputation as a director of the NIAS at the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) was injured; he became the object of public contempt and ridicule as he was depicted as a sex-crazed stalker and serial rapist; and the news item deferred his promotion to the position of Deputy Administrator of PAGASA.

In their Answer,¹¹respondents prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint, they alleging that "the news item, having been sourced from the Police Blotter which is an official public document and bolstered by a personal interview of the victim is therefore privileged and falls within the protective constitutional provision of freedom of the press. .. ., " and by way of Compulsory Counterclaim, they prayed for the award of moral and exemplary damages plus attorneys fees.

Branch 97 of the Quezon City RTC, noting as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

[T]he publication stated that a "pretty coed was raped by her boss", and not qualifying said statement that it was merely a report, with such phrases as "allegedly" or "reportedly". Furthermore, the article in question continued reporting as if it were fact and truth the alleged abduction of the same girl by her boss, identified as "Director of the National Institute of Atmospheric Science." The questioned article did not even hint that it was merely based on interview with the said girl or that it was reflected in the police blotter, and then it would have been fair, for the mind of the reader would be offered the other side to speculate on. As it turned out, the other side, the side of the defamed and libeled had an alibi to prove the story false, aside from his testimony that proved the inherent unnaturalness and untruthfulness of the alleged victim of the alleged rape and abduction,¹²

rendered a Decision¹³ of August 13, 1992, in favor of petitioner, disposing as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

In view of the above evidence and the foregoing considerations, this Court hereby renders judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the above-mentioned defendants, and orders the latter to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff the following amounts: 1.) P1,000,000.00, as nominal damages; 2.) P50,000.00, as exemplary damages; 3.) P1,000.000.00, as moral damages; 4.) P50,000.00, as attorneys fees; and 5.) Costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.¹⁴

Respondents motion for reconsideration¹⁵ of the trial courts decision having been denied by Resolution¹⁶ of March 2, 1993, they appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).

Citing Borjal et al. v. Court of Appeals et al.¹⁷ which held that:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might be reasonably inferred from the facts.¹⁸ (Underscoring supplied),

the CA found that herein petitioner "was not able to prove by a preponderance of evidence that [herein respondents] were motivated by a sinister intent to cause harm and injury to [herein petitioner]. .. " Accordingly, by Decision of July 31, 2001, the CA reversed and set aside the trial courts decision and dismissed petitioners complaint.¹⁹ Petitioners motion for reconsideration²⁰ of the appellate courts decision was denied by Resolution of October 12, 2001,²¹ hence, the petition at bar.

The petition revolves around the issue of whether the CA erred in holding that the publication of the news item was not attended with malice to thus free respondents of liability for damages.

It bears noting that the complaint petitioner instituted is one for damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code which provides:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

Article 33 contemplates a civil action for the recovery of damages that is entirely unrelated to the purely criminal aspect of the case.²² A civil action for libel under this article shall be instituted and prosecuted to final judgment and proved by preponderance of evidence separately from and entirely independent of the institution, pendency or result of the criminal action because it is governed by the provisions of the New Civil Code and not by the Revised Penal Code governing the criminal offense charged and the civil liability arising therefrom.²³

The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code, those found in the Chapter on Human Relations, namely Articles 19 and 21, provide:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

In actions for damages for libel, it is axiomatic that the published work alleged to contain libelous material must be examined and viewed as a whole.²⁴

The article must be construed as an entirety including the headlines, as they may enlarge, explain, or restrict or be enlarged, explained or strengthened or restricted by the context. Whether or not it is libelous, depends upon the scope, spirit and motive of the publication taken in its entirety. x x x

A publication claimed to be defamatory must be read and construed in the sense in which the readers to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand it. So, the whole item, including display lines, should be read and construed together, and its meaning and signification thus determined.

In order to ascertain the meaning of a published article, the whole of the article must be considered, each phrase must be construed in the light of the entire publication x x x The headlines of a newspaper must also be read in connection with the language which follows.²⁵

Petitioner brands the news item as a "malicious sensationalization" of a patently embellished and salacious narration of fabricated facts involving rape and attempted rape incidents. For, so petitioner argues, the police blotter which was the sole basis for the news item plainly shows that there was only one count of abduction and rape reported by Emelita.

The entry made by Patrolman Chio in the police blotter which respondent Morales scrutinized at the WPD headquarters recorded indeed Emelitas complaint about only a case for abduction with rape which occurred on March 14, 1987. In her above-quoted sworn statement, however, earlier given before the same Patrolman Chio in the presence of Morales who subsequently interviewed her, Emelita reported about an abduction with rape incident which occurred on March 14, 1987 and an abduction incident which occurred on April 13, 1987.

Petitioners anchoring of his complaint for damages on a charge of "malicious" sensationalization of fabricated facts thus fails.

The presentation of the news item subject of petitioners complaint may have been in a sensational manner, but it is not per se illegal.²⁶

Respondents could of course have been more circumspect in their choice of words as the headline and first seven paragraphs of the news item give the impression that a certain director of the NIAS actually committed the crimes complained of by Emelita. The succeeding paragraphs (in which petitioner and complainant Emelita were eventually identified) sufficiently convey to the readers, however, that the narration of events was only an account of what Emelita had reported at the police headquarters.

In determining the manner in which a given event should be presented as a news item and the importance to be attached thereto, newspapers must enjoy a certain degree of discretion.

Every citizen of course has the right to enjoy a good name and reputation, but we do not consider that the respondents, under the circumstances of this case, had violated said right or abused the freedom of the press. The newspapers should be given such leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role in our democracy. In the preparation of stories, press reporters and [editors] usually have to race with their deadlines; and consistently with good faith and reasonable care, they should not be held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words.²⁷ (Underscoring supplied)ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

In fine, this Court finds that case against respondents has not been sufficiently established by preponderance of evidence.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Vitug, (Chairman), on official leave.

Endnotes:

¹ Rollo at 37-49.

² TSN, April 12, 1991 at 10-11.

³ Exhibit "2," Records at 450-451.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Exhibit "1", Records at 449.

⁶ TSN, May 3, 1991 at 7.

⁷ TSN, April 12, 1991 at 13-14.

⁸ TSN, May 3, 1991 at 5.

⁹ Exhibit "B," Records at 386-387.

¹⁰ Id. at 29-65.

¹¹ Id. at 109-114.

¹² Id. at 93-94.

¹³ Id. at 347-353.

¹⁴ Id. at 353.

¹⁵ Id. at 354-375.

¹⁶ Id. at 424.

¹⁷ 301 SCRA 1 (1999).

¹⁸ Id. at 23.

¹⁹ Rollo at 49.

²⁰ CA Rollo at 190-214.

²¹ Rollo at 51.

²² Azucena v. Potenciano, 5 SCRA 468, 471 (1962).

²³ Cesar S. Sangco, TORTS AND DAMAGES, Vol. 1, 1993 ed. At 332.

²⁴ Bulletin Publishing Corp. v. Noel, 167 SCRA 255, 261 (1988) (citations omitted); Quisumbing v. Lopez, et al, 96 Phil. 510, 513 (1955) (citations omitted); Jimenez v. Reyes, 27 Phil. 52, 59 (1914) (citation omitted).

²⁵ Quisumbing v. Lopez, 96 Phil. 510, 513 (1955) (citations omitted).

²⁶ Policarpio v. Manila Times Pub. Co., Inc., 5 SCRA 148, 155 (1962).

²⁷ 96 Phil. 510 (1955).