THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CARSON TAYLOR, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The complaint alleged:

“That on the 25th day of September, 1913, the said Carson Taylor, being then
and there the acting editor and proprietor, manager, printer, and publisher in
the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, of a certain daily bilingual newspaper,
edited in the English and Spanish languages, and known as the ‘Manila Daily
Bulletin,’ a paper of large circulation throughout the Philippine Islands, as
well as in the United States and other countries in all of which both languages
are spoken and written, and having as such the supervision and control of said
newspaper, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, maliciously,
and with intent to impeach the honesty, virtue, and reputation of one Ramon
Sotelo as member of the bar of the Philippine Islands and as a private
individual, and to expose him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, compose,
print, edit, publish, and circulate and procure to be composed, printed, edited,
published, and circulated in said newspaper’s issue of the above mentioned date,
September 25, 1913, a certain false and malicious defamation and libel in the
English language of and concerning the said Ramon Sotelo, which reads as
follows:

” ‘OWNERS FIRED BUILDING TO COLLECT INSURANCE.—
CRIMINAL
CHARGES FOLLOW CIVIL SUIT.

” ‘Conspiracy divulged in three sworn statements made by members of the party
after a family disagreement. Sensational statement sworn to. Mystery of Calle
O’Donnell fire solved and papers served.

” ‘Conspiracy to defraud the insurance company.

” ‘The building was fired to collect the amount of insurance.

” ‘The movable furniture of value was removed before the fire.

” ‘The full amount of the insurance was collected, and the conspiracy was a
success.

” ‘The above is the gist of the sworn statements of Vicente Sotelo and
Eugenio Martin in connection with the fire that destroyed house No. 2157 Calle
O’Donnell on April 4.

” ‘The case in question is a sensational one to say the least, and the court
is being petitioned to set aside the ruling and cite the parties to show cause
why they should not be cited to answer charges of conspiracy to defraud.

” ‘On April 4,1913, the house located at 2157 Calle O’Donnell was destroyed
by fire. The house was insured for P5,000, the contents for an additional
P5,000, with the West of Scotland Insurance Association, of which Lutz & Co.
are the local agents, with an additional P1,500 with Smith, Bell & Co.

“‘The full amount of the insurance on the property was paid by the agents of
the insurance companies and the matter apparently dropped from the records.

” ‘Then there was internal trouble and information began to leak out which
resulted in sensational statements to the effect that the destruction of the
property had been an act of incendiarism in order to collect the insurance. Then
there was an investigation started and it resulted in sworn statements of the
three persons above mentioned.

” ‘Notarial returns were made yesterday by the sheriff, based on the sworn
statements and the parties are cited to appear in court and show cause.

” “The investigation also showed that the furniture, which was supposed to be
in the house at the time of the conflagration and which was paid for by the
insurance agents, sworn statements having been made that it was destroyed in the
fire, was in a certain house in Montalban, where it was identified upon the
sworn statements of the above mentioned. Implicated in the charges of conspiracy
and fraud is the name of tne attorney for the plaintiff who made affidavit as to
the burning of the house and against whom criminal proceedings will be brought
as well as against the original owners.

” ‘Attorney Burke, who represents Lutz & Co. in the proceedings, was seen
last night and asked for a statement as to the case. Mr. Burke refused to talk
on the case and stated that when it came to trial it would be time enough to
obtain the facts.

” ‘The present action came before the court on a motion of Attorney Burke to
set aside the judgment, which, in the original case, gave the owners of the
property judgment for the amount of the insurance.

“‘Attorney Burke filed the sworn statements with the court and the notarial
returns to the same were made yesterday afternoon, the sworn statements as to
the burning of the house being in the hands of the sheriff.

“‘It was stated yesterday that a criminal action would follow the civil
proceedings instituted to recover the funds in the case entitled on the court
records, Maria Mortera de Eceiza and Manuel Eceiza versus the West of Scotland
Association, Limited, No. 10191 on the court records.

” ‘It might be stated also that Eugenio Martin was one of the plaintiffs in
the recent suit brought against Ex-Governor W. Cameron Forbes for lumber
supplied for his Boston home.’

“That in this article is contained the following paragraph. to wit:

” ‘ * * *. Implicated in the charges of conspiracy and fraud is the name of
the attorney for the plaintiff who made affidavit as to the burning of the house
and against whom criminal proceedings will be brought as well as against the
original owners,’ by which the said accused meant to refer and did refer to the
said Ramon Sotelo, who then and there was the attorney for the plaintiff in the
case aforesaid, No. 10191 of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila,
and so was understood by the public who read the same; that the statements and
allegations made in said paragraph are wholly false and untrue, thus impeaching
the honesty, virtue, and reputation of the said offended party as a member of
the bar of the Philippine Islands and as a private individual, and exposing him
to public hatred, contempt and ridicule. Contrary to law.”

Upon said complaint the defendant was arrested, arraigned, plead not guilty,
was tried, found guilty of the crime charged, and sentenced by the Honorable
George N. Hurd, judge, to pay a fine of P200. From that sentence the defendant
appealed to this court and made the following assignments of error:

“First. The court erred in finding that the defendant was responsible for and
guilty of the alleged libel.

“Second. The court erred in finding that the defendant was the proprietor and
publisher of the ‘Manila Daily Bulletin.

“Third. The court erred in finding that the alleged Jibelous article was
libelous per se.

“Fourth. The court erred in holding that the article was libelous, while
finding that there was no malice.

“Fifth. The court erred in finding that the alleged libel, ous article
referred to attorney Ramon Sotelo.

“Sixth. The court erred in finding that Ramon Sotelo was attorney for the
plaintiffs in case No. 10191, when the alleged libel was
published.”

After a careful examination of the record and the arguments presented by the
appellant, we deem it necessary to discuss only the first and second assignments
of error.

In the Philippine Islands there exist no crimes such as are known in the
United States and England as common law crimes. No act constitutes a crime here
unless it is made so by law. Libel is made a crime here by Act No. 277 of the
United States Philippine Commission. Said Act
(No. 277) not only defines the
crime of libel and prescribes the particular conditions necessary to constitute
it, but it also names the persons who may be guilty of such crime. In the
present case the complaint alleges that the defendant was, at the time of the
publication of said alleged article “the acting editor, proprietor, manager,
printer, publisher, etc. etc. of a certain bilingual, newspaper, etc., known as
the ‘Manila Daily Bulletin, a paper of large circulation throughout the
Philippine Islands, as well as in the United States and other countries.”

It will be noted that the complaint charges the defendant as “the acting
editor, proprietor, manager, printer, and publisher.” From an examination of
said Act No. 277, we find that section 6 provides that: “Every author, editor,
or proprietor of any book, newspaper, or serial publication is chargeable with
the.publication of any words contained in any part of said book or number of
each newspaper or serial as fully as if he were the author of the same.”

By an examination of said article, with reference to the persons who may be
liable for the publication of a libel in a newspaper, we find that it only
provides for the punishment of “the author, editor, or proprietor.” It would
follow, therefore, that unless the proof shows that the defendant in the present
case is the “author, editor, or proprietor” of the newspaper in which the libel
was published, he can not be held liable.

In the present case the Solicitor-General in his brief said that—”No person
is represented to be either the ‘author, editor, or proprietor.'” That statement
of the Solicitor-General is fully sustained by the record. There is not a word
of proof in the record showing: that the defendant was either the “atithor, the
editor, or the proprietor.” The proof shows that the defendant was the
“manager.” He must, therefore, be acquitted of the crime charged against him,
unless it is shown by the proof that he, as “manager” of the newspaper, was in
some way directly responsible for the writing, editing, or publishing of the
matter contained in said alleged libelous article. The prosecution presented the
newspaper, the “Manila Daily Bulletin,” for the purpose of showing the relation
which the defendant had to it. That was the only proof presented by the
prosecution to show the relation which the defendant had to the publication of
the libel in question. From an examination of the editorial page of said
exhibit, we find that it shows that the “Manila Daily Bulletin” is owned by the
“Bulletin Publishing Company,” and that the defendant was its manager. There is
not a word of proof in the record which shows what relation the manager had to
the publication of said newspaper. We might, by a series of presumptions and
assumptions, conclude that the manager of a newspaper has some direct
responsibility with its publication; We believe, however, that such presumptions
and assumptions, in the absence of a single letter of proof relating thereto,
would be unwarranted and unjustified. The prosecuting attorney had an
opportunity to present proof upon that question. Either because he had no proof
or because no such proof was obtainable, he presented none. It certainly is not
a difficult matter to ascertain who is the real person responsible for the
publication of a newspaper which is published daily and has a wide circulation
in a particular community. No question was asked the defendant concerning his
particular relation to the publication of the newspaper in question. We do not
desire to be understood in our conclusions here as holding that the “manager” or
the “printer” may not, under certain conditions and proper proof, be held to be
the “author, editor, or proprietor” of a newspaper. He may denominate himself as
“manager’ or “printer” simply, and be at the same time the “author, editor; or
proprietor” of the newspaper. He can not avoid responsibility by using some
other term or” word, indicating his relation to the newspaper or the
publication, when, as a matter of fact, he is the “author, the editor, or the
proprietor” of the same. His real relation to the said publication is a matter
of proof. The Solicitor-General, in his brief, says that the defendant used the
word “manager” with the hope of evading legal responsibility, as the Libel Law
places the responsibility for publishing a libel, on “every author, editor, or
proprietor of any book, etc.” Had the prosecuting attorney in the trial of the
cause believed that the defendant, even though he called himself the “manager”
was, in fact, the “author, editor, or proprietor” of said publication, he should
have presented some proof supporting that contention. Neither do we desire to be
understood as holding that simply because a person connected with the
publication of a newspaper who calls himself the “manager” or “printer” may not,
in fact and at the same time, be the “author, editor, or proprietor.” The
“author, editor, or proprietor” can not avoid responsibility for the writing and
publication of a libelous article, by simply calling himself the “manager” or
the “printer” of a newspaper. That, however, is a question of proof. The burden
is upon the prosecution to show that the defendant is, by whatever name he may
call himself, in truth and in fact, the “author, editor, or proprietor” of a
newspaper. The courts cannot assume, in the absence of proof, that one who
called himself “manager” was in fact the “author, editor, or proprietor.” We
might assume, perhaps, that the “manager” of a newspaper plays an important part
in the publication of the same by virtue of the general signification of the
word “manager,” Men can not, however, be sentenced upon the basis of a mere
assumption. There must be some proof. The word “manage” has been defined by
Webster to mean “to have under control and direction; to conduct; to guide; to
administer; to treat; to handle.” Webster defines “manager” to be “one who
manages; a conductor or director; as, the manager of a theater.” A manager, as
that word is generally understood, we do not believe includes the idea of
ownership. Generally speaking it means one who is representing another as an
agent. That being true, his powers and duties and obligations are generally
defined by contract. He may have expressed as well as implied powers, but
whatever his powers and duties are they must be dependent upon the nature of the
business and the terms of his contract. There is no fixed rule which indicates
particularly and definitely his duties, powers and obligations. An examination
into the character of the business and the contract of his employment must be
made for the purpose of ascertaining definitely wliat his duties and obligations
are. His exact relation is always a matter of proof. It is incumbent upon the
prosecution in a case like the present, to show that whatever title, name or
designation the defendant may bear, he was, in fact, the “author, the editor, or
the proprietor” of the newspaper. If he was in fact the “author, editor, or
proprietor,” he can not escape responsibility by calling himself the “manager”
or “printer.” It is the relation which he bears to the publication and not the
name or title which he has assumed, which is important in an investigation. He
can not wear the toga of author or editor and hide his responsibility by giving
himself some other name. While the terms “author, editor, and proprietor” of a
newspaper are terms well defined, the particular words “author, editor, or
proprietor” are not material or important, further thati that they are words
which are intended to show the relation of the responsible party to the
publication. That relation may as well exist under some other name or
denomination.

For the foregoing reasons, therefore, there being no proof whatever in the
record showing that the defendant was the “author, the editor, or the
proprietor” of the newspaper in question, the sentence of the lower court must
be reversed, the complaint dismissed and the defendant discharged from the
custody of the law, with costs de officio. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.