G.R. No.

157643               March 28, 2008

CRISTINELLI S. FERMIN, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

On June 14, 1995, Gossip Tabloid, owned by the defendants Fermin and Tugas, published an article about
spouses Annabelle Rama and Eduardo Gutierrez stating the ff:

"MAS MALAKING HALAGA ANG NADISPALKO NILA SA STATES, MAY MGA NAIWAN DING
ASUNTO DOON SI ANNABELLE"

"IMPOSIBLENG NASA AMERIKA NGAYON SI ANNABELLE DAHIL SA KALAT DIN ANG ASUNTO
NILA DU’N, BUKOD PA SA NAPAKARAMING PINOY NA HUMAHANTING SA KANILA MAS
MALAKING PROBLEMA ANG KAILANGAN NIYANG HARAPIN SA STATES DAHIL SA PERANG
NADISPALKO NILA, NAGHAHANAP LANG NG SAKIT NG KATAWAN SI ANNABELLE KUNG SA
STATES NGA NIYA MAIISIPANG PUMUNTA NGAYON PARA LANG TAKASAN NIYA SI LIGAYA
SANTOS AT ANG SINTENSIYA SA KANYA"

Spouses Gutierrez sue them for Libel stating that the facts were untrue and entirely false and were published to
publicly humiliate and disgrace them. The RTC of Quezon City, decided in favor of Annabelle and Eduardo
Gutierrez and sentenced Fermin and Tugas a penaly of Aresto Mayor up to Prision Correcional, attorney’s fees of
50,000 and moral damages of 500,000 to Annabelle and Eduardo respectively.

Fermin and Tugas appealed to the Court of Appeals, however, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC and
convicted Fermin, but acquitted Tugas on the account of non-participation in publishing the libelous article.

Fermin filed a petion for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. She argued that she had no
knowledge in the publication of the article and that the article is not libelous in nature and is covered by the
freedom of the press.

Issue:

THE RULING IN U.S. VS. TAYLOR, PEOPLE VS. TOPACIO AND SANTIAGO, U.S. VS. MADRIGAL AND
U.S. VS. SANTOS AND THE HOLDING IN U.S. VS. OCAMPO AS CLARIFIED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS IN PEOPLE VS. BELTRAN AND SOLIVEN REQUIRING KNOWLEDGE, PARTICIPATION
AND COMPLICITY BY THE PUBLISHER IN THE PREPARATION AND APPROVAL OF THE LIBELOUS
ARTICLE TO SUSTAIN THE LATTER’S CONVICTION FOR LIBEL ARE APPLICABLE IN THE
PRESENT CASE.

II.
ART. 360 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE WHICH MAKES A PUBLISHER LIABLE FOR LIBEL TO THE
SAME EXTENT AS IF HE WERE THE AUTHOR THEREOF MERELY CREATES A DISPUTABLE
PRESUMPTION WHICH MAY BE REBUTTED BY CONTRARY EVIDENCE.

III.

THE QUESTIONED ARTICLE IS NOT LIBELOUS.

IV.

THE QUESTIONED ARTICLE IS PROTECTED BY THE MANTLE OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
AND IS WITHIN THE REALM OF FAIR AND HONEST COMMENT

Held:

The petitioner in the case invokes Art 360 of the RPC, that, it is mandatory that the publisher knowingly
participated in or consented to the preparation and publication of the libelous article allegedly based on
abovementioned cases.

The SC disagrees and based their decision on the legal doctrines and jurisprudence of the United states that states,
the printer of a publication containing libelous matter is liable for the same by reason of his direct connection
therewith and his cognizance of the contents thereof. With regard to a publication in which a libel is printed, not
only is the publisher but also all other persons who in any way participate in or have any connection with its
publication are liable as publishers

The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the
rule established in a decision of the Supreme Court. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle that
once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further
argument.

According the the Supreme Court, “Unfortunately, the Beltran decision attained finality at the level of the CA.
Thus, if the CA seemingly made a new pronouncement regarding the criminal liability of a publisher under
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, that ruling cannot bind this Court unless we purposely adopt the same. Be
that as it may, we find no compelling reason to revisit U.S. v. Ocampo; to modify it would amount to judicial
legislation. Article 360 is clear and unambiguous, and to apply People v. Beltran and Soliven, which requires
specific knowledge, participation, and approval on the part of the publisher to be liable for the publication of a
libelous article, would be reading into the law an additional requirement that was not intended by it.”

In the contention of the petitioner that the article is not libelous, libel is defined as a public and malicious
imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary; or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken
the memory of one who is dead. Therefore, if you will comprehend the article, it reeks malice as it tends to cause
dishonor and discredit the victims and were also proven to be lies. There was also a motive why the defamatory
statements were release, as it weas held during an electoral campaign where the petitioner is on the side of the
victim’s political opponents.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated September 3, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20890 is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in lieu of imprisonment, petitioner Cristinelli S. Fermin is sentenced
to pay a fine in the amount of ₱6,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in each case. The
award of moral damages, in the amount of ₱300,000.00 each in favor of complainants Annabelle Rama Gutierrez
and Eduardo Gutierrez, is increased to ₱500,000.00. Costs against petitioner.