BELEN v. PEOPLE

Medel Arnaldo B. Belen vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 211120

February 13, 2017

Facts:

On March 12, 2004, petitioner, then a practicing lawyer and now a former Judge, filed a criminal complaint for estafa against his uncle, Nezer D. Belen, Sr. before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of San Pablo City, which was assigned to then Assistant City Prosecutor Ma. Victoria Sufiega-Lagman for preliminary investigation. With the submission of the parties and their respective witnesses' affidavits, the case was submitted for resolution. In order to afford himself the opportunity to fully present his cause, petitioner requested for a clarificatory hearing. Without acting on the request, Lagman dismissed petitioner's complaint in a Resolution dated July 28, 2004. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion (for Reconsideration & Disqualify), the contents of which later became the subject of this libel case.

Petitioner furnished copies of the Omnibus Motion to Nezer and the Office of the Secretary of Justice, Manila. The copy of the Omnibus Motion contained in a sealed envelope and addressed to the Office of the City Prosecutor of San Pablo City was received by its Receiving Section on August 27, 2004. As a matter of procedure, motions filed with the said office are first received and recorded at the receiving section, then forwarded to the records section before referral to the City Prosecutor for assignment to the handling Investigating Prosecutor.

ACP Suñega-Lagman first learned of the existence of the Omnibus Motion from Michael Belen, the son of Nezer who is the respondent in the estafa complaint. She was also informed about the motion by Joey Flores, one of the staff of the OCP of San Pablo City. She then asked the receiving section for a copy of the said motion, and requested a photocopy of it for her own reference.

On September 20, 2004, ACP Suñega-Lagman filed against petitioner a criminal complaint for libel on the basis of the allegations in the Omnibus Motion (for Reconsideration & Disqualify). The complaint was docketed as LS. No. 04-931 before the OCP of San Pablo City. Since ACP Suñega-Lagman was then a member of its office, the OCP of San Pablo City voluntarily inhibited itself from conducting the preliminary investigation of the libel complaint and forwarded all its records to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor.

On September 23, 2004, the Regional State Prosecutor issued an Order designating State Prosecutor II Jorge D. Baculi as Acting City Prosecutor of San Pablo City in the investigation of the libel complaint.

On December 6, 2004, State Prosecutor Baculi rendered a Resolution finding probable cause to file a libel case against petitioner. On December 8, 2004, he filed an Information charging petitioner with the crime of libel.

Upon arraignment, petitioner refused to make a plea; hence, the trial court entered a plea of "NOT GUILTY." Trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: (1) complainant ACP Suñega-Lagman, (2) Michael Belen, the son and representative of respondent Nezer in the estafa complaint; and (3) Joey R. Flores and Gayne Garno Enseo, who are part of the administrative staff of the OCP of San Pablo City. For its part, the defense presented the accused petitioner as its sole witness.

After trial, the trial court found petitioner guilty of libel. On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court's decision. On the claimed lack of publication, the CA pointed out that the defamatory matter was made known to third persons because prosecution witnesses Flores and Enseo, who are the staff in the OCP of San Pablo City, were able to read the Omnibus Motion filed by petitioner, as well as Michael, son and representative of Nezer in the estafa case then being investigated by ACP Suñega-Lagman, was furnished copy of the motion. Anent the applicability of the rule on absolutely privileged communication, the CA ruled in the negative because the subject statements were unnecessary or irrelevant in determining whether the dismissal of the estafa case filed by petitioner against Nezer was proper, and they were defamatory remarks on the personality, reputation and mental fitness of ACP Suñega-Lagman.

In a Resolution dated January 10, 2014, the CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the element of publication is absent and that petitioner cannot be found is guilty of libel.

Held:

No. Publication in libel means making the defamatory matter, after it has been written, known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written. A communication of the defamatory matter to the person defamed alone cannot injure his reputation though it may wound his self-esteem, for a man's reputation is not the good opinion he has of himself, but the estimation in which other hold him. In the same vein, a defamatory letter contained in a closed envelope addressed to another constitutes sufficient publication if the offender parted with its possession in such a way that it can be read by person other than the offended party. If a sender of a libelous communication knows or has good reasons to believe that it will be intercepted before reaching the person defamed, there is sufficient publication. The publication of a libel, however, should not be presumed from the fact that the immediate control thereof is parted with unless it appears that there is reasonable probability that it is hereby exposed to be read or seen by third persons.

In claiming that he did not intend to expose the Omnibus Motion to third persons, but only complied with the law on how service and filing of pleadings should be done, petitioner conceded that the defamatory statements in it were made known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written. Despite the fact that the motion was contained in sealed envelopes, it is not unreasonable to expect that persons other than the one defamed would be able to read the defamatory statements in it, precisely because they were filed with the OCP of San Pablo City and copy furnished to Nezer, the respondent in the estafa complaint, and the Office of the Secretary of Justice in Manila. Then being a lawyer, petitioner is well aware that such motion is not a mere private communication, but forms part of public record when filed with the government office. Inasmuch as one is disputably presumed to intend the natural and probable consequence of his act, petitioner cannot brush aside the logical outcome of the filing and service of his Omnibus Motion.

It is not amiss to state that generally, the requirement of publication of defamatory matters is not satisfied by a communication of such matters to an agent of the defamed person. In this case, however, the defamatory statement was published when copy of the Omnibus Motion was furnished to and read by Michael, the son and representative of respondent Nezer in the estafa complaint, who is clearly not an agent of the defamed person, ACP Suñega-Lagman. Petitioner then argues that there is no publication as to Flores and Enseo, the staff of the OCP of San Pablo City, who had read the contents of the Omnibus Motion. In support thereof, he cites the settled rule that "when a public officer, in the discharge of his or her official duties, sends a communication to another officer or to a body of officers, who have a duty to perform with respect to the subject matter of the communication, such communication does not amount to publication."15 Petitioner's argument is untenable. As mere members of the administrative staff of the OCP of San Pablo City, Flores and Enseo cannot be said to have a duty to perform with respect to the subject matter of his motion, which is to seek reconsideration of the dismissal of his Estafa complaint and to disqualify ACP Suñega-Lagman from the preliminary investigation of the case. Their legal duty pertains only to the clerical procedure of transmitting the motions filed with the OCP of San Pablo City to the proper recipients.