THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL., ACCUSED, HERNANDO J. ABAYA, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

In the issue of March 19, 1955 of the Manila Daily Bulletin an English daily
published in the City of Manila while the Monroy murder case was pending
decision, the following news story was published:

“FOIL EXTORTION TRY ON CASTELO

“Philippine constabulary agents thwarted yesterday an alleged attempt by two
society matrons, one of them a parolee, to extort P100,000.00 from former
Defense and Justice Secretary Oscar Castelo.

“The two matrons allegedly asked for P100,000 to ensure Castelo’s acquittal
in the Monroy murder case now awaiting decision by Judge Emilio Rilloraza of the
Pasay City Court of First Instance.

“Investigators were questioning the parolee last night and were set to
question the other matron on the alleged extortion attempt. The P.C. agents
intended to confront the two women with tape recording and pictures taken while
the two women were ‘negotiating’ for the money.

“Castelo confirmed the extortion attempt last night in his Quezon City
residence at 25 Sampaloc Avenue. He said the attempt was not consummated because
he stopped the transactions. He said he had ‘limited’ himself to reporting the
case to the P.C.

“Castelo said he did not believe Judge Rilloraza had something to do with the
attempt of the two women.

“The plan was reportedly broached last March 10 to Miss Adelaida Reyes, one
of those originally accused with Castelo in the Monroy murder case. Miss Reyes,
who is a friend of the former cabinet member, informed Castelo about the
proposal the following day. Castelo in turn reported the matter to the military
intelligence service and the constabulary G-2.

“Constabulary agents led by Majors Delfin de la Cruz and Teodulo Natividad
laid a trap, using women agents and photographers in the mission. The
negotiations reportedly took place in the San Juan de Dios coffee shop on Dewey
boulevard.

“The negotiations did not go through because Miss Reyes could not raise the
amount. Moreover, Castelo did not approve of the negotiations. He said he would
be acquitted anyway in the Monroy murder case.

“In her attempt to help Castelo, Miss Reyes reportedly offered P20,000. She
told the two matrons she could raise the amount by selling her house, lot and
car. The matrons reportedly laughed at the offer. The amount was reduced to
P80,000, but Miss Reyes was still unable to raise it.

“It was during this stage of the negotiations that tape recordings and
pictures were taken by P.C. agents in the coffee shop.

“Miss Reyes gave her written statement yesterday to a constabulary agent. Her
narration, which was corroborated by the recordings, in effect follows:

“At 7 p.m., last March 10, she received a telephone call from one of the
matrons informing her of ‘bad news’ about Castelo. The matron allegedly saw
Judge Rilloraza’s decision sentencing Castelo and the other accused to death for
the Monroy case.

“Miss Reyes was told to go to the Dewey Boulevard coffee shop at once if she
wanted the decision modified. She met one of the matrons at the shop. She was
told to wait for sometime because the other matron was purportedly at the
residence of Judge Rilloraza.

“The second matron arrived 20 minutes later. The first matron met and talked
with her before she was introduced to Miss Reyes. After the introduction the
second matron made the proposal. She tried to make Miss Reyes believe that she
actually saw the decision.

“Miss Reyes was asked to pay P100,000 to have the decision changed to one of
acquittal. She was made to understand that the second matron and Judge Rilloraza
would meet the following day. She was told the two wouid go together to La Union
in connection with a business transaction there.

“Miss Reyes and the two matrons parted. She was given until March 14 to give
her answer.

The following day, Miss Reyes informed Castelo. The former cabinet member
reportedly got mad. He then reported the matter to the M.I.S. The M.I.S. in turn
notified the P.C.”

The above news story came to the knowledge of Judge Emilio Rilloraza who was
trying the Monroy murder case on December 19, 1955 and so he issued on that date
an order citing Hernando Abaya, who admittedly was the news editor who wrote the
story, to show cause why he should not be punished for indirect contempt in
connection with the publication. A motion to dismiss the contempt citation
having been denied, Abaya filed his reply to the citation. Thereafter, the
contempt proceeding was set for hearing, after which the court rendered decision
finding Abaya guilty of indirect contempt and ordering him to pay a fine of
P50.00 payable within 15 days from notice of the decision or to suffer
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Dissatisfied with this decision,
Abaya took the present appeal.

Appellant set up as a defense his constitutional right to publish the news
story shielding himself behind the freedom of the press guaranteed by our
Constitution. He averred that he published the story in the exercise of the
constitutional right of a newsman to report fairly and truthfully all matters of
public concern without previous restraint and without fear of subsequent
punishment, the publication complained of being a fair and true account of a
matter that was at that time under investigation by proper government agencies.
The extortion story was news, he said, and he published it in the interest of
public service. In effect, the following constitutes his explanation of the
publication:

“1. That the publication in question was published in the exercise of the
constitutional right of respondent newsman to report publicly and truthfully all
matters of public concern without previous restraint and without fear of
subsequent punishment, the publication complained of being a fair and true
account of a matter at that time under investigation by the proper governmental
agencies, without any critical or adverse comment on this Hon. Court:

“a. Any imputation to the contrary as to the motive of respondent newsman is
totally bereft of any support in truth and in fact, resting purely in conjecture
and indicating a complete failure to appreciate and understand the high standard
that animates a news editor when he decides what item is deserving of space in
his newspaper, a matter more clearly explained in the words of respondent
newsman thus:

‘I would like to make a brief statement. In citing me for contempt, this
honorable court made the statement, and I quote, “that the news story—whether
true or concocted evidently had for its purpose and objective to corrupt and buy
the Presiding Judge in order to immorally and unlawfully secure the acquittal of
the accused Oscar Castelo in the Monroy murder case—tended directly or
indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade and embarrass the administration of
justice.”

‘This statement hints at motives that never entered in my decision, as a news
editor to publish the story. I was guided by only one consideration. The story
was news and I was merely performing my duty as a newspaperman in telling the
story.

‘I might add that in evaluating what constitutes news, I have always relied
on my long experience as a newspaperman for 20 years, six of which I spent in
big newspapers in the United States.

‘The extortion story was news. I published it in the interest of public
service.

‘I will probably be asked, as other news editors before me had been asked,
what the source of the story was, I can only say that the story was written by a
member of my editorial staff, whose sense of news value I have no reason to
doubt.

‘His source of information must remain his secret. He has a right, under the
law, to protect his sources of confidential information. Without such
protection, persons in possession of information which should belong to the
public would be reluctant to pass on tips to the newspapers, or adamant against
doing so. Avenues of information leading perhaps to uncovering government graft
and corruption would be closed. Wrong-doing would remain hidden.

‘There would be no free press in this Republic.’

“2. That on its face, the publication complained of refers to an alleged
commission of a crime, and the corresponding information for attempted estafa,
after due investigation, has been as a matter of fact, duly filed by the City
Fiscal of Pasay City with this Hon. Court;

“3. That such publication, published more than nine (9) months ago, does not
constitute improper conduct since as admitted by this Hon. Court itself, it did
not influence his decision in the Monroy murder case, nor impede or obstruct the
administration of justice, much less degrade any judicial tribunal;

“4. That in the light of the above, it is undeniable that there is no ground
for continuing further with this indirect contempt proceedings, the publication
not amounting to contempt of court, the order of December 19, 1955 itself
containing averments which if true, would constitute a legal excuse and a legal
justification; and that any contempt charge, if any exists, has been
extinguished by nine (9) months of inaction, all of which would clearly indicate
that in this proceeding, there is an infringement on this respondent’s
constitutional rights sufficient to show that in this particular instance no
jurisdiction to cite respondent newsman for contempt exists.”

But the trial judge brushed aside the above plea of freedom of the press upon
the argument that said freedom is by no means absolute or without limitation.
While recognizing that an unmuzzled press must be maintained to the highest
level in a democracy like ours, his Honor contended that the right to freedom of
the press or freedom of expression, like any other freedom, is not unbriddled
since the same is subject to certain limitations, such as the laws punishing
contempt of court, prohibiting libel and slander, and suppressing sedition, to
cite a few, which cannot be transgressed lest we give immunity to license or
abuse detrimental to the public good. Indeed, the trial, judge said, even the
constitutional guaranty of life, liberty and property, or the pursuit of
happiness, is subject to such restraints and limitations as are reasonably
necessary for the public good. The possession and enjoyment of these rights and
freedoms by an individual must be so restricted and limited as to afford their
equal possession and enjoyment by his neighbors “for the right of all is
superior to the right of anyone.” The right or freedom of the people is supreme.
And anchored on this belief, the trial judge concluded that the publication of
the news story in question in effect tended, directly or indirectly, to impede,
obstruct, degrade, or embarrass the administration of justice because its
ultimate purpose is to secure immorally and illegally the acquittal of Oscar
Castelo in the Monroy murder case at a time when the same was still pending
decision.

Before we proceed to discuss the merits of this case, it is necessary that an
objective analysis be made of the published news story to determine its true
perspective or the situation under which it was published. This objective
analysis is imperative to determine whether it comes within the limitations of
the freedom of the press or constitutes a fair and true account of a matter that
may come within the scope of a privileged communication. In short, the analysis
is necessary to show if appellant has transgressed the bounds of his
constitutional freedom as a news editor.

The story as published may be briefly summed up as follows: Philippine
constabulary agents investigated two society matrons in their attempt to extort
P100,000.00 from Oscar Castelo allegedly to secure his acquittal. The
investigators questioned the matrons and took tape recordings and pictures while
they were negotiating the money. Castelo confirmed the extortion attempt. The
plan was broached to Miss Adelaida Reyes, a friend of Castelo, who upon being
informed thereof reported the matter to the military intelligence service of the
constabulary (G-2). The negotiations took place in San Juan de Dios coffee shop
on Dewey boulevard. There Miss Reyes was told by one of the matrons that she saw
the decision sentencing Castelo but that they could secure its change to
acquittal if Miss Reyes could raise P100,000.00. The negotiations did not go
through because Miss Reyes could not raise the amount. When Miss Reyes informed
Castelo of the plan he reportedly got mad.

According to appellant, what he published in his story was a fair and true
account of a matter that was then under investigation by constabulary agents
without making any comment or criticism. In fact, as a result of said
investigation, the two matrons were charged with attempted estafa before the
Court of First Instance of Rizal which was then pending trial when this contempt
incident came up before this Court.

It thus appears that the narration of the extortion try made in the news
story is but an account of the facts then being gathered by the agents of the
constabulary who were then investigating the two society matrons involved
therein. During the investigation tape recordings and pictures of the
negotiations were even taken. The investigation was not carried out
confidentially or at closed doors for apparently the reporters or outsiders were
not excluded. In fact, similar stories appeared in other newspapers which gave
rise to similar contempt proceedings against their news editors as a result of
this publication. It is likewise noteworthly that throughout the narration no
criticism or comment was ever made casting reflection against the trial judge or
tending to influence one way or the other his decision on the pending Castelo
case. It was a mere factual appraisal of the investigation.

The question that now arises is: Can the act of appellant in publishing the
news story he considered indirect contempt as found by the trial judge?

The trial judge has so found because in his opinion such act constitutes an
“improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct, or degrade
the administration of justice”, in violation of Section 3 (d), Rule 64, of our
Rules of Court. In this connection, the trial judge made the following comment:
“It does not require great stretch of the imagination to perceive that the
publication or news story in question, in effect, tended, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade or embarrass the administration of
justice, because the obvious ultimate purpose and objective of the alleged
P100,000.00 ‘extortion try’ referred to in the said news report or story—whether
the plan or scheme is true or concocted or fabricated—was to immorally and
illegally secure the acquittal of the accused Oscar Castelo in the said Monroy
murder case at a time when the same case was still pending decision.”

It should however be noted that there is nothing in the story which may even
in a slight degree indicate that the ultimate purpose of appellant in publishing
it was to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice in
connection with the Castelo case. The publication can be searched in vain for
any word that would in any way degrade it. The alleged extortion try merely
concerns a news story which is entirely different, distinct and separate from
the Monroy murder case. Though mention was made indirectly of the decision then
pending in that case, the same was made in connection with the extortion try as
a mere attempt to secure the acquittal of Castelo. But the narration was merely
a factual appraisal of the negotiation and no comment whatsoever was made
thereon one way or the other coming from the appellant. Indeed, according to the
trial judge himself, as he repeatedly announced openly, said publication did not
in any way impede or obstruct his decision promulgated on March 31, 1955. As
this Court has aptly said, for a publication to be considered as contempt of
court there must be a showing not only that the article was written while a case
is pending but that it must really appear that such publication does
impede, interfere with and embarrass the administration of justice (People vs.
Alarcon, 69 Phil., 265). Here, there is no such clear showing. The very decision
of the court shows the contrary.

But, even if it may have that effect, we however believe that the publication
in question comes well within the framework of the constitutional guaranty of
the freedom of the press. At least it may be said that it is a fair and true
report of an official investigation that comes well within the principle of a
privileged communication, so that even if the same is defamatory or
contemptuous, the publisher need not be prosecuted upon the theory that he has
done it to serve public interest or promote public good. Thus, under our law, it
is postulated that “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 such proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers
in the exercise of their functions”, is deemed privileged and not punishable
(Article 354, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code).

The reason behind this privilege is obvious. As it was aptly said, “Public
policy, the welfare of society, and the orderly administration of government
have demanded protection for public opinion. The inevitable and incontestible
result has been the development and adoption of the doctrine of privilege” (U.
S. vs. Bustos, 37 Phil., 731, 742). On another occasion it was emphasized that
“The doctrine of privilege communications rests upon public policy, ‘which looks
to the free unfettered administration of justice, though, as an incidental
result, it may in some instances afford an immunity to the evil-disposed and
malignant slanderer‘ ” (Abbott vs. National Bank of Commerce, Tacoma, 175
U.S. 409, 411; Italics supplied).

While the present case involves an incident of contempt the same is akin to a
case of libel for both constitute limitations upon freedom of the press or
freedom of expression guaranteed by our Constitution. So what is considered a
privilege in one may likewise be considered in the other. The same safeguard
should be extended to one whether anchored in freedom of the press or freedom of
expression. Therefore, this principle regarding privileged communications can
also be invoked in favor of appellant.

A circumstance that mitigates the behavior of appellant is his compelling
duty as he sees it to serve public opinion by reporting matters of public
concern. He acted imbued with this spirit and compelled by this duty. His main
function is to gather news of public interest for his newspaper from sources
available to him which at times come under adverse circumstances and this he has
a perfect right to do provided that his source comes within the realm of law. In
legal parlance, we may say that this source should be one not of confidential
nature or not banned for publication. Otherwise, its privileged nature is
destroyed. He then becomes amenable to prosecution or disciplinary action. This
situation does not here obtain. The source wherefrom appellant obtained the
facts of his story was not confidential. Apparently, the investigation was not
held behind closed doors, because it was an inyestigation where the public was
not prohibited. For this laxity he should not be blamed. It is the fault of the
agents of the law.

We wish to make one observation on this point. We have of late observed that
the agents of the law called upon to investigate a case which involves a
violation of the law or a commission of a crime are prone to conduct their
investigations openly and publicly even if their purpose is merely to find if
there is probable cause that may warrant formal prosecution. This happened not
only in this particular case but in others that have come to the official
knowledge of the court. This practice should be stopped not only because of the
preliminary character of the inquiry but especially to save consequent annoyance
or embarrassment, if not a loss of reputation, on the part of those subject of
investigation who may later turn out to be innocent. There is even a case where
the fiscal has conducted a preliminary inquiry in the presence of newspapermen
who were even allowed to ask questions to witnesses. It is high time that their
attention be called to the impropriety of such a practice which is not conducive
to the proper administration of justice, for its pernicious effects are not only
to reveal the evidence of the prosecution prematurely but to annoy and embarrass
those who may otherwise be found innocent of the charge. Our duty is to save
such embarrassment and to insure an effective prosecution. This admonition goes
not only to public prosecutors but to administrative investigation agents of our
government as well.

The foregoing considerations lead us to no other conclusion than that
appellant is not guilty of the contempt charge and hence he should be
acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.