OGIE DIAZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Ogie Diaz versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a criminal case for libel. The People of the Philippines charged Ogie Diaz, a newspaper columnist, and Manny Pichel, the paper's managing editor, with publishing a defamatory article about a woman identified only as "Miss S." The woman who claims to be that person, Florinda Bagay, says the article destroyed her reputation. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's cleanest teaching on the fourth element of libel, the identifiability of the victim: an article may be plainly defamatory, malicious, and published, and still fail as libel if the person claiming to be defamed cannot be identified from the article itself. It is a study in how a conviction can fall on a single missing element.

Procedural History

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed an Information for libel against Manny Pichel and Ogie Diaz with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Both accused pleaded not guilty, and the case was heard on the merits. The trial court convicted both of libel and sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum, plus a fine of 3,000 pesos each.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained the conviction of Ogie Diaz but acquitted Manny Pichel. Ogie Diaz filed a motion for reconsideration, which the appellate court denied. He then elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Florinda Bagay, a graduate of a medical secretarial course, tried her luck in the movies under the screen name "Patricia Santillan." During her brief stint she met Philip Henson, an aspiring bit player. They had a whirlwind romance and began living together, and she gave birth to a daughter. By the time the child was born, their relationship had ended.

On December 28, 1991, Bandera, a local tabloid, published in its movie section a column written by Ogie Diaz. The article described the sexual activities of a certain "Miss S" with one Philip Henson, quoting Philip's graphic claims about her supposed sexual proclivities. Florinda claimed she was the "Miss S" alluded to, because her screen name is Patricia Santillan. A friend called her attention to the article, her godmother showed it to her, and her family and neighbors read it. She felt embarrassed and stopped her studies as a medical technology student.

At trial, Florinda and her godmother Mila Parawan testified for the prosecution. Ogie Diaz admitted writing the column but denied knowing Florinda or "Miss S," saying his source was Philip Henson. The defense presented veteran movie journalists, who testified that they had never heard of an actress named Patricia Santillan, that reading the article would not lead a reader to think "Miss S" was Patricia Santillan, and that in the movie world the letter "S" refers to shabu, not to a person.

Issues

• Whether or not the subject article is libelous.
• Whether or not Florinda Bagay was identified or identifiable as the "Miss S" defamed in the article, so as to sustain a conviction for libel.

Applicable Provisions

Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel:

Article 353. Definition of libel. A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice, or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

This definition supplies the elements the Court tests the article against.

Article 355 of the same Code punishes libel by means of writings:

Article 355. Libel by means of writings or similar means. A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

This is the penal provision under which the accused were charged and convicted below.

Article 354 of the same Code supplies the presumption of malice:

Article 354. Requirement for publicity. Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.

This presumption relieves the prosecution of proving malice once the imputation is shown to be defamatory on its face.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the article is indeed libelous. For an imputation to be libelous, four requisites must be present: it must be defamatory; it must be malicious; it must be given publicity; and the victim must be identifiable. The Court found the first element present, construing the words in their entirety and in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as readers would understand them. The article cast aspersion on the character, integrity, and reputation of "Miss S," conveying that she is a sexual libertine with unusually wanton proclivities, in a society where modesty is still highly prized among young ladies.

On malice, the Court held that since the article is defamatory on its face, malice is presumed under Article 354. There was neither good reason nor motive for the article except to embarrass "Miss S" and injure her reputation. On publication, there was no question, since the article appeared in the December 28, 1991 issue of Bandera.

On the second issue, however, the Court held that the element of identifiability was not met. It is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that the person be named. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent, or if the publication contains matters of description or reference to facts and circumstances from which others reading the article may know the person alluded to, or if the person is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that those knowing such person could and did understand that he was the person referred to. The Court applied the rule from Kunkle versus Cablenews-American and Lyons that this requirement is complied with where a third person recognized or could identify the party vilified in the article.

Here, the article referred to "Miss S" but gave no sufficient description or other indications identifying her. It failed to show that "Miss S" and Florinda Bagay are one and the same person. Citing Uy Tioco versus Yang Shu Wen, the Court held that where the requirement for an identified or identifiable victim has not been complied with, the case for libel must be dismissed. Although the article is libelous, Florinda Bagay could not have been the person defamed therein.

Doctrine

For an imputation to be libelous under Article 353, four requisites must concur: it must be defamatory; it must be malicious; it must be given publicity; and the victim must be identifiable. Absent any one of these elements, a case for libel will not prosper.

Malice is presumed from a defamatory imputation under Article 354, even if the imputation be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. The prosecution therefore need not prove malice independently once the statement is defamatory on its face.

On identifiability, the victim need not be named. It is enough that by intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent, or that the publication contains description or reference to facts and circumstances from which readers may know the person alluded to, or that extraneous circumstances point out the person so that those who know him could and did understand that he was the one referred to. The test is whether a third person recognized or could identify the party vilified.

Where the requirement of an identified or identifiable victim is not complied with, the case for libel must be dismissed, even if the article is defamatory, malicious, and published.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, acquitted Ogie Diaz of the crime of libel, and ordered the cancellation of his bail on appeal.

Remember This

Memorize the four elements of libel and this line: no identifiable victim, no libel, even if the article is plainly defamatory. Examiners use this case to test the identifiability element, the presumption of malice under Article 354, and the principle that a conviction cannot stand where the defamed person cannot be identified from the article itself.