Fermin was charged with libel for publishing a defamatory article about Annabelle and Eduardo Gutierrez. The article made false accusations of criminal behavior and portrayed them poorly. Fermin argued it was fair comment but the court found she acted with malice. The court affirmed Fermin was guilty of libel and sentenced her to pay fines and damages, finding she violated the Gutierrez family's rights to protection of reputation despite free speech protections.
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
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
23 views1 page
Intro To Law Cases
Fermin was charged with libel for publishing a defamatory article about Annabelle and Eduardo Gutierrez. The article made false accusations of criminal behavior and portrayed them poorly. Fermin argued it was fair comment but the court found she acted with malice. The court affirmed Fermin was guilty of libel and sentenced her to pay fines and damages, finding she violated the Gutierrez family's rights to protection of reputation despite free speech protections.
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/ 1
CASES FACTS ISSUES RULING
1. Fermin v. Fermin, the petitioner, was charged 1. Whether or not Thesis:
People, 550 with libel for writing and publishing a the publication SCRA 132 , defamatory article in a tabloid. The of the Yes, the publication of the March 28, complainants in the case were defamatory defamatory article constituted libel. 2008 (Topic: Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo article Generally) Gutierrez. The libelous article constitutes Rule: contained accusations of criminal libel. behavior, including malversation of Article III, Section 4, 1987 Philippine funds, and portrayed the complainants Constitution): This constitutional as fugitives from the law who had provision guarantees the right to returned to the Philippines to evade freedom of speech, of expression, prosecution in the United States. The and of the press. It states that no article also implied that Annabelle law shall be passed abridging these Rama Gutierrez lost money through rights. irresponsible gambling in casinos. Jurisprudence provides that, In the trial at the Regional Trial Court freedom of speech and freedom of (RTC) of Quezon City, Fermin argued the press, while constitutionally that the article was merely a fair and protected rights, are not absolute honest comment on the issuance of a and must be exercised responsibly. warrant of arrest against Annabelle It is important to balance freedom Rama Gutierrez. She also claimed that of expression with the protection of she had no malice in writing the article. individual rights and reputation. However, the RTC convicted Fermin of libel and ordered her to pay moral Application: damages to the Gutierrez couple. In the case at bar, the court ruled in The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the favor of the Gutierrez family, finding petitioner's motion for reconsideration, Fermin guilty of libel. The court held finding it without merit. Following the that Fermin's article contained denial of the motion for malicious and false statements that reconsideration by the CA, the imputed crimes, vices, and defects petitioner filed a petition with the to the complainants, which had the Supreme Court. potential to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. The court also considered Fermin's close association with political candidates during an election campaign, indicating a motive to harm the reputation of the complainants during the electoral contest.
Conclusion:
Thus, the Decision of the Court of
Appeals is affirmed. Petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of ₱6,000.00 in each case, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The award of moral damages in favor of complainants ₱500,000.00 each. Costs are to be borne by the petitioner.
2. De Mesa v. De Mesa and other petitioners 1. Whether or not Thesis:
Pepsi Cola (plaintiffs) held soft drink bottle caps the dismissal of Products Phils., with the number 349, believing it to be the plaintiffs' Yes, the dismissal of the plaintiffs'