MANUEL ELIZALDE, FRED J. ELIZALDE, PRUDENCIO R. EUROPA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. MARIO J. GUTIERREZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, CFI-ILOCOS SUR, BRANCH III, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REP…

Elizalde versus Gutierrez

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Manuel Elizalde, Fred Elizalde, and Prudencio Europa against Judge Mario Gutierrez of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur and the People of the Philippines. The petitioners were the publisher, assistant publisher, and editor-in-chief of the Evening News, and they had been charged with libel over a news item that reproduced a dispatch of the Philippine News Service summarizing the testimony of a witness in a pending rape case. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clearest statement that a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding is a privileged communication, and that a libel prosecution which trenches on the constitutional guarantee of a free press cannot stand.

Procedural History

The Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Sur filed an information for libel against the petitioners. The petitioners moved to quash the information, relying principally on the doctrine of United States versus Bustos and invoking their constitutional right to freedom of expression. An assistant provincial fiscal filed an opposition. The respondent judge denied the motion to quash. The petitioners filed an extensive motion for reconsideration, which the respondent judge likewise denied. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari and prohibition.

Facts

On the first of September, 1967, the Evening News published a news item furnished by the Philippine News Service. The item reproduced in full a dispatch summarizing the testimony of Jaime Jose, one of the principal accused in a celebrated rape case, given before a court of first instance. In that testimony, Jose mentioned Vincent Crisologo, the son of a congressman, as among his companions on the night in question, and the name of Crisologo was repeatedly mentioned.

The news item was a faithful and accurate summary of what the witness testified to. It stated that the two complainants had originally named Crisologo among the accused, but had later executed an affidavit saying they were mistaken in identifying him. The prosecution did not deny the accuracy of what was reported.

On the fifth of February, 1970, the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for libel naming Vincent Crisologo as the offended party. The petitioners moved to quash, and when their motion and their motion for reconsideration were both denied, they brought this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the publication of a fair and true report of a witness's testimony in a pending judicial proceeding falls within the protection of the constitutional guarantee of a free press, so that a prosecution for libel cannot be maintained against the publishers and editor.
• Whether or not the news item is a privileged communication, so that no culpability may be imputed to the petitioners for the alleged offending publication.
• Whether or not the denial of the motion to quash, being a denial of a constitutional right, deprived the respondent court of jurisdiction to proceed with the case.
• Whether or not the headline of the news item rendered the publication libelous.

Applicable Provisions

The freedom of the press provision of the 1935 Constitution, then in force, provides:

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.

This guarantee is the source of the protection the Court extends to the petitioners.

Article 354, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, on privileged communications, provides:

A fair 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.

This provision is the explicit statutory exception to the rule that every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the case falls squarely within the protection of the free press provision. The news item was a faithful and accurate summary of testimony in a pending rape case, and it would have been a plain distortion to omit the name of Crisologo when it was repeatedly mentioned. That the item possessed a defamatory aspect is beside the point and cannot justify a prosecution for libel. The Court recalled the doctrine of United States versus Bustos, that freedom of the press is so sacred to the people and won at so dear a cost that it should be protected and carried forward as one would protect the covenant of liberty itself.

On the second issue, the Court held that no culpability could be imputed without doing violence to the concept of privileged communication implicit in freedom of the press. As Justice Malcolm put it in Bustos:

A privileged communication should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover grounds of malice or falsity. Such excessive scrutiny would defeat the protection which the law throws over privileged communications. The ultimate test is that of bona fides.

The Court held that by no stretch of the imagination could the news services be said to have exhibited bad faith by merely narrating the testimony of a witness in a rape case.

On the third issue, the Court held that since there was a denial of a constitutional right, a jurisdictional issue was raised, and the competence of the court to continue with the pending case ceased. The Court noted that in prior decisions it had sustained the quashing of informations for libel where the privileged character of the publication was apparent on the face of the information.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the headline, which linked Crisologo's son to the Pasay rape case, was a correct description of the news story. It portrayed with accuracy what was contained in the news item, the tone was neutral and objective, and there was no attempt to sensationalize.

Doctrine

A fair and true report, made in good faith and without comment, of a judicial proceeding is a privileged communication under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, and its publication cannot be the basis of a libel prosecution. The test of privilege is good faith, and a privileged communication should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover malice or falsity. Where the facts alleged in the information show that the publication is privileged, the accused need not wait for trial, and the court may dismiss the information upon a motion to quash. A prosecution that would penalize such a report trenches on the constitutional guarantee of a free press, and the denial of a motion to quash in such a case amounts to a denial of a constitutional right that divests the court of jurisdiction to proceed.

Disposition

The Court granted the writ of certiorari, set aside and nullified the orders denying the motion to quash and the motion for reconsideration, granted the writ of prohibition, and made permanent the restraining order, prohibiting the respondent judge from taking any action in the libel case except to dismiss it.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding is privileged, and the ultimate test of privilege is good faith, not microscopic scrutiny for malice. Examiners use this case to test privileged communication under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code and the rule that a motion to quash may be granted when the privileged character of the publication appears on the face of the information.