Eliseo Soriano Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 225010. November 21, 2018

Eliseo Soriano Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 225010. November 21, 2018

Tijam

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64717

That on or about July 31, 1998 at Iriga City, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused being then the anchorman of a religious radio program "Ang Dating Daan" of DZAL, a radio station in Iriga City with considerable coverage in the city and throughout Bicol Region, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and maliciously with intent to cause and expose to public ridicule, dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the persons comprising the Jesus Miracle Crusade, International Ministry (J[MC]IM), a religious group, publicly air in his said radio program his prepared taped broadcast containing false, injurious, and defamatory statements with no good intention or justifiable motive in the guise of preaching the gospel of the Lord by branding its leader as "BULAANG PROFETA, TARANTADO AND GAGO"; its pastors as PASTOR NG DEMONYO, MGA PASTOR NA IMPAKTO and GAGO and its members as "ISANG DAKOT NA GAGO and SIRA ULO" which in words are quoted hereunder respectively intended for group's leader, pastors and members as follows, to wit:

"Mahina yong Diyos ng gago na iyan ng Pastor na iyan. Ano ba ang itatawag mo roon kundi gago iyon. Galit na galit noong matalo si De Venecia, kasi pinatungan niya ng kamay si De Venecia at idenekre "I decree that you will be the next president of the Philippines" SIRA! O, ngayon nahalata mo dito sya ang "BULAANG PROPETA x x x TARANTADONG PASTOR NYO;

"Iyang mga PASTOR NG DEMONYO sa ating panahon, bakit di mo sasabihing PASTOR NG DEMONYO IYAN. Hindi ba iyong mga nagsasabing ang mananalo ay si De Venecia. Tapos ng nanalo si Erap, eh, hindi ika kami papayag na umupo siya sa Malacanang. Tingnan mong KAGAGUHANG IYON. MGA PASTOR NA IMPAKTO. MARINA IYONG DIYOS NG GAGONG PASTOR NA IYON"; and

"TARANTADONG PASTOR NYO DIYAN KA PA RIN. Eh, kahit ano ang mangyayari doon pa rin sila talaga. lyon ang makikita mo iyon espiritu ng PAGKAPANATISMO. x x x Kaya para magrelihiyon ka noong ganoong relihiyon DAPAT SIRA ANG ULO MO. x x x SIRA NA LANG ANG ULO MO kaya nga mali na ang gawing ng pastor mo, doon ka pa rin. DAHIL SIRA NA ANGULO MO."

Issues
After trial, the RTC, found petitioner guilty of two counts of libel. The fallo of the RTC's Consolidated Judgment dated June 8, 2012, is as follows:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, this court finds the accused Guilty of the crime of Libel in both cases and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Fine of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00) for each case pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 relating to the emergent rule of preference for the imposition of fine only rather than imprisonment in libel cases under the circumstances therein specified, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Summed up, the fundamental issue in the instant case boils down to petitioner's guilt of the two counts of libel. "[F]or an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must be present: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable." Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. - Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases: "Libel is published not only when it is widely circulated, but also when it is made known or brought to the attention or notice of another person other than its author and the offended party." Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an identified or identifiable individual. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a particular member of a class, no member of such class has a right of action without at all impairing the equally demanding right of free speech and expression, as well as of the press, under the Bill of Rights.
 * Libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code 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."
 * Defamatory Imputation
 * The words "GAGO", "TARANTADONG PASTOR", "PASTOR NG DEMONYO IYAN", "BULAANG PROPETA" disparage private complainant Wilde Almeda (Almeda).
 * 1) a private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
 * 2) afair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. and
 * 3) fair commentaries on matters of public interest may still be considered actionable if actual malice is proven.
 * Malice
 * This Court can only see Soriano's apparent objective of discrediting and humiliating private complainants as to sow the seeds of JMCIM's dissolution and to encourage membership in his religion.
 * Publication
 * "There is publication in this case. In libel, publication means making the defamatory matter, after it is written, known to someone other than the person against whom it has been written."
 * In this case, there is no doubt that the video footage of petitioner was published as it was broadcasted through petitioner's radio program.
 * Identification
 * While We affirm petitioner's guilt of libel, We deem it proper to clarify that petitioner's guilt stems from his statements against pastor Almeda and not the JMCIM, or any of its pastors. We note that aside from mentioning Almeda's name, petitioner's statements did not refer to any specific pastor or member of the JMCIM.


 * No violation of religious freedom
 * Petitioner's claim that his statements are absolutely protected by the Constitution because they are expressions of religious beliefs do not merit any consideration. As what this Court stated in Soriano v. Laguardia, et al., "Plain and simple insults directed at another person cannot be elevated to the status of religious speech. Even petitioner attempts to place his words in context show that he was moved by anger and the need to seek retribution, not by any religious conviction."

Decisions
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated August 17, 2015 and the Resolution dated May 18, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35052 are hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner Eliseo Soriano is hereby held GUILTY of the crime of libel for in Criminal Case No. IR-5273 and ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. IR-4848.