Facts:
On October 5, 1959, in the City of Manila, Isauro Santiago, during a political speech attended by around 100 people and delivered through an amplifier system, made defamatory statements against Mayor Arsenio H. Lacson. Santiago accused Mayor Lacson of raping a woman at the Aroma Café and another City Hall employee at the Shellborne Hotel, intending to injure Lacson’s reputation and expose him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule.
The prosecution filed an information for libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code against Santiago on August 11, 1960. Santiago moved to quash the information, arguing that the crime was oral defamation under Article 358, which had already prescribed as it was filed more than six months after the alleged offense.
Procedural Posture:
The Court of First Instance of Manila granted Santiago’s motion to quash on the basis that the crime was oral defamation and had already prescribed. The prosecution, disagreeing with the trial court’s interpretation, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, contending that the defamatory statements made through an amplifier system constituted libel.
Issues:
1. Whether the defamatory statements made by Santiago constitute oral defamation under Article 358 or libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Whether the use of an amplifier system falls within the scope of “any similar means” under Article 355.
Court’s Decision:
1. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the defamatory statements constituted oral defamation under Article 358, not libel under Article 355.
2. The Court ruled that an amplifier system does not fall under “any similar means” as used in Article 355. The Court reasoned that methods listed in Article 355, such as writing, printing, lithography, and radio, share a common characteristic of having a permanent nature as a means of publication. Unlike these methods, the transmission through an amplifier system does not have permanence and involves conducting wires, separating it from methods such as radio transmission (which involves electromagnetic waves without conducting wires).
Doctrine:
1. The distinction between libel and oral defamation lies in the permanence of the method of publication. Libel involves methods that have a permanent nature, while oral defamation is transient.
2. The transmission of words by an amplifier system is categorized under oral defamation rather than libel since it occurs without the permanence associated with the methods listed under Article 355.
Class Notes:
– **Key Elements/Concepts**:
– **Libel (Article 355, Revised Penal Code)**: Requires a permanent method of publication (e.g., writing, printing, radio transmission).
– **Oral Defamation (Article 358, Revised Penal Code)**: Refers to transient verbal statements, including those made through an amplifier system.
– **Prescription**: Oral defamation prescribes in six months according to Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code.
– **Relevant Legal Statutes**:
– **Article 355**: Defines libel through permanent means of publication.
– **Article 358**: Defines and punishes oral defamation.
– **Prescription (Articles 90 and 91)**: Establish that oral defamation prescribes six months after its commission.
– **Application in Context**:
– The Court highlighted the necessity for permanence in methods of publication to categorize a defamatory statement as libel. The temporary nature of speech through an amplifier system aligns it with oral defamation, not libel.
Historical Background:
During the mid-20th century in the Philippines, political climate and free speech rights were under significant scrutiny. The case occurred in an era where the legal definitiveness of libel versus slander/oral defamation was critical for addressing political speech and the defamation of public figures. The Court’s decision reinforced the necessity of permanent records for libel cases, maintaining a clear line between transient statements and documented defamatory publications.
Leave a Reply