Scribd
Upload
23 views2 pages

13.bonifacio v. RTC and Gimenez

The document discusses a libel case involving defamatory articles published on a website. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting an amended information because merely accessing a website in a location is not equivalent to the article being printed and first published there. The information must specify where the article was actually printed and first published to establish proper venue.

Uploaded by

Benedicto Pintor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views2 pages

13.bonifacio v. RTC and Gimenez

The document discusses a libel case involving defamatory articles published on a website. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting an amended information because merely accessing a website in a location is not equivalent to the article being printed and first published there. The information must specify where the article was actually printed and first published to establish proper venue.

Uploaded by

Benedicto Pintor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Facts:

On August 25, 2005, officers, trustees, and members of the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc.
(PEPCI) published defamatory articles and statements in their website http://www.pepcoalition.com.
Their publication contained highly derogatory statements and allegedly false accusations attacking the
Yuchengco Family, the Yuchengco Group of Companies (YGC) and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.

On May 5, 2006, The Makati Prosecutor’s Office found probable cause to indict the accused and filed 13
separate informations, charging them with libel. The accused, however, filed a Motion to Quash the
Information on the grounds that it failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC. They contended that the
information is fatally defective for failure to designate the offense charged and the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense of libel. The Makati RTC granted the motion and quashed the
information, but the prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that even assuming that
the information was deficient, it merely needed a formal amendment. This motion for reconsideration
was granted by the RTC who then ordered the prosecution to amend the information to read

That on or about the 25th day of August 2005 in Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within
the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the trustees of Parents
Enabling Parents Coalition and as such trustees they hold the legal title to the website
http://www.pepcoalition.com which is of general circulation, and publication to the public conspiring,
confederating together with John Does, whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still
unknownand all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and publicly and maliciously with intention of attacking the honesty, virtue,
honor and integrity, character and reputation of complainant Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., Yuchengco
Family particularly Ambassador Alfonso Yuchengco and Helen Dee and for further purpose exposing the
complainant to public hatred and contempt published an article imputing a vice or defect to the
complainant and caused to be composed, posted and published in the said website
http://www.pepcoalition.com, a website accessible in Makati City, an injurious and defamatory article,
which was first published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City

Again, petitioners moved to quash the information which they alleged still failed to vest jurisdiction.
Note that the prosecution laid the venue of the case in the place where the offended party accessedthe
internet-published article. The petitioner’s motion, however, was not granted by the RTC.

Issue:

Was there grave abuse of discretion by the RTC when it admitted the amended information?

Ruling:

Yes. As held in Macasaet, there are two places wherein libel cases may be tried: (1) where the
complainant actually resides at the time of the offense or (2) where the alleged defamatory article was
printed and first published. The amended information in the case at bar opted to lay the venue by
availing the second option. The prosecution stated that the article was first published and accessedby
the complainant in Makati City. In other words, it considered accessing to be equivalent to the requisite
allegation of printing and first publication.
The Supreme Court then looked at the situation of libel cases before Article 360 of the RPC was
amended by RA 4363. Before, the injured party has the choice of venue. However, experience showed
that the offended party could harass the accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal action
in a remote or distant place. Thus, RA 4363 laid down specific rules as to the venue to avoid this
problem.

If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published are used by the offended party
as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the Information must allege with particularity where the
defamatory article was printed and first published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the
address of their editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers, magazines or serial publications.

If the Court will hold that the amended information vested jurisdiction in the Courts of Makati simple
because the defamatory article was accessed therein would open floodgates to the libel suit being filed
in all other locations where the website was accessed or capable of being accessed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy