**Dionisio Lopez y Aberasturi vs. People of the Philippines and Salvador G. Escalante, Jr. (658 Phil. 20)**
### Facts:
**1. Initial Allegations:**
– On April 3, 2003, Dionisio Lopez was indicted for libel based on an Information dated March 31, 2003.
– The libel charge was grounded on events that occurred in early November 2002.
– Lopez allegedly put up signboards in Cadiz City with the phrase “CADIZ FOREVER” followed by a blank space before the word “NEVER”.
**2. Subsequent Actions:**
– On November 15, 2002, the blank space on the signboards was filled with the words “BADING AND SAGAY NEVER”, making it read “CADIZ FOREVER BADING AND SAGAY NEVER”.
– The complainant, Mayor Salvador G. Escalante, Jr., felt the message dishonored him and claimed it resulted in mental anguish and sleepless nights, thus filing a libel complaint against Lopez.
**3. Trial Court Proceedings:**
– In pre-trial, both parties stipulated that Escalante was commonly known as “Bading”.
– Prosecution witnesses testified that the signboards created a negative impression and insulted the mayor.
– Petitioner admitted to installing the signboards but claimed no malicious intent, asserting that it was a wake-up call for Cadiz City.
**4. Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC):**
– On December 17, 2003, Lopez was convicted of libel.
– The RTC found all elements of libel present and sentenced Lopez to imprisonment ranging from four months and twenty days to two years, eleven months, and ten days, and a fine of P5,000. Lopez was also ordered to pay P5,000,000 in moral damages.
**5. Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA):**
– Lopez appealed the RTC’s decision.
– The CA affirmed the conviction but reduced the moral damages to P500,000.
– Lopez filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied on April 7, 2006.
**6. Petition to the Supreme Court:**
– Dissatisfied with the CA’s decision, Lopez filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.
– Both the private respondent (Escalante) and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submitted their respective comments, with the OSG later adopting a stance in favor of Lopez’s acquittal.
### Issues:
**1. Whether the printed phrase “CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER” is libelous.**
**2. Whether the controversial words used constituted privileged communication.**
### Court’s Decision:
**1. On Defamatory Nature:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that for a statement to be libelous, it must be defamatory, malicious, publicly given, and the victim must be identifiable.
– The SC found that the phrase “CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER” did not meet the criteria for being defamatory because it:
– Did not specifically impute any crime, vice, or defect to the complainant.
– Did not directly or indirectly cause dishonor or discredit.
– Was simply an expression of personal disfavor or preference, not inherently injurious to Escalante’s character or reputation.
**2. Malice and Privileged Communication:**
– Since the phrase was not inherently defamatory, the issue of malice became moot.
– Furthermore, given the context of the statements relating to a public official’s conduct in office, such statements are often protected or considered privileged.
**3. Acquittal:**
– The SC reversed the decisions of the RTC and CA, acquitting Dionisio Lopez on the ground that no actionable defamation was proven.
### Doctrine:
**1. Libel Definition and Elements:**
– Public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, intended to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a person.
– The elements include defamatory statement, malice, public imputation, and identifiability of the victim.
**2. Protection for Public Officers:**
– Comments related to the official duties of public officers enjoy a degree of protection, recognizing the need for public discourse and criticism in democratic processes.
### Class Notes:
**Key Elements:**
1. **Defamatory Content:**
– The statement must impute a crime, vice, or defect that causes dishonor or discredit.
2. **Publication:**
– There must be evidence that the statement was made public.
3. **Identifiable Victim:**
– The victim of the defamatory statement must be ascertainable.
**Relevant Statutes:**
– **Revised Penal Code Articles 353 and 355:** Defining libel and its penalties.
– **Privilege in Criticism of Public Officers:** Indicates that public officials must withstand criticism, whether fair or otherwise, as part of their public role.
### Historical Background:
– This case underscores the tension in democratic societies between safeguarding the freedom of expression and protecting individuals, especially public officials, from defamatory statements.
– The decision reflects the judiciary’s role in maintaining a balance between these competing interests, often tilting in favor of free speech unless clear and convincing evidence of defamatory intent is present.
Leave a Reply