ERWIN TULFO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ATTY. CARLOS T. SO, RESPONDENTS.

Tulfo versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a criminal case for libel. The petitioner, Erwin Tulfo, a newspaper columnist, was charged together with the managing editor, the national editor, the city editor, and the president of the publishing house of the tabloid Remate, upon the complaint of Atty. Carlos "Ding" So of the Bureau of Customs. The case matters because it draws the fine line between the freedom of the press and the responsibility that freedom carries, and because it settles how the presumption of malice in libel operates against a journalist who attacks a public official without verifying his facts.

Procedural History

Four separate informations for libel were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 112, arising from four columns published in the tabloid Remate. All five accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found all of them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of libel, sentenced each to imprisonment for each count, and ordered them to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages, jointly and severally.

They appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Their motions for reconsideration were denied for lack of merit.

Tulfo then brought a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, and his co-accused brought a similar petition. The two cases were consolidated because they arose from the same set of facts, involved the same parties, assailed the same decision, and sought identical reliefs.

Facts

Atty. Carlos "Ding" So had been connected with the Bureau of Customs since October 1981, and at the time of the publications he was the officer in charge of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. In his column "Direct Hit" in the tabloid Remate, Erwin Tulfo published a series of articles on May 11, May 12, May 19, and June 25 of 1999. The articles called a certain Atty. "Ding" So of the Bureau of Customs the richest government official in the country through corruption, an extortionist, a thief, a crocodile in a necktie, and a disgrace to his church, and even said that his soul was already burning in hell.

Atty. So filed complaint-affidavits, and four informations for libel were filed against Tulfo as author, together with the editors and the publisher of Remate. At the pre-trial, the parties admitted that during the four dates of publication the complainant was not assigned at South Harbor, that the accused and the complainant did not know each other at the time, that Remate is a tabloid of general circulation, and that it is the duty of media persons to expose corruption.

The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that the articles were untrue and that they referred to Atty. So, since there was only one Atty. Carlos "Ding" So in the entire Bureau of Customs. For his defense, Tulfo testified that he did not know Atty. So and had never met him, that he relied only on his sources at the Bureau of Customs, and that he did not conduct any research on Atty. So before publishing. He claimed that his criticism was directed not at the complainant but at some other person at South Harbor who might have been using the name of Atty. So. His co-accused testified that they had no participation in the writing, editing, or publication of his column, which was given autonomy.

Issues

• Whether or not the subject articles are qualifiedly privileged communications, so that the prosecution must prove malice in fact rather than rely on the presumption of malice.
• Whether or not the articles were written with malice, and whether or not the element of identity of the person defamed was established.
• Whether or not the editors and the publisher may be held liable for the defamatory articles under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code despite the evidence that they had no participation in their writing, editing, or publication.

Applicable Provisions

Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines 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.

The trial court convicted the accused under this definition, finding that the articles imputed crimes and corrupt acts to the complainant.

Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code states when malice is presumed:

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, except in the following cases: 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and 2. 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 presumption is the heart of the case, because Tulfo argued that it should not apply to his articles.

Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code governs the persons responsible for libel:

Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.

The complainant invoked this provision to include the editors and the publisher of Remate as equally liable as the author.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the defense of qualifiedly privileged communication was raised for the first time only in the petition before the Supreme Court, and was never brought before the trial court or the Court of Appeals. Whether the articles are privileged communications must first be established by the defense, which it failed to do below. Even so, the Court resolved the question because an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review. It distinguished the Borjal case on several points: Borjal was a civil action for damages, the complainant there was not sufficiently identified, the subject there was a private citizen, and the articles there were fair commentaries on matters of public interest. Here the subject is a public official, and the goings-on at the Bureau of Customs are matters of public interest, but the Court still had to determine whether the articles were fair commentaries.

On the second issue, the Court held that the articles were not fair commentaries and were written with malice. Freedom of the press is not absolute, and its exercise carries an equal burden of responsible exercise. The Journalist's Code of Ethics requires journalists to air the other side and to correct substantive errors promptly, and to presume persons accused of crime innocent until proven otherwise. Tulfo followed neither. He admitted that he did not know Atty. So, that he conducted no in-depth research, and that he relied only on his sources. Even after admitting the possibility that someone else might have used Atty. So's name, he made no effort to verify his allegations before publishing them. The Court also found that the element of identity was established, since there was only one Atty. Carlos "Ding" So in the entire Bureau of Customs.

On the third issue, the Court held that the editors and the publisher are liable under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which makes any person who publishes, exhibits, or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing responsible for the same. Their claim of non-participation did not relieve them of responsibility.

Doctrine

Freedom of the press is not absolute. It must be exercised with responsibility, and the recognition of a right is not a free license for the one claiming it to run roughshod over the rights of others.

Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code unless good intention and justifiable motive are shown. A journalist who attacks a public official on a matter of public interest cannot claim the protection of qualified privileged communication, or fair comment, without first proving that the communication is privileged and that he acted in good faith. Reliance on an unverified source, without research and without giving the subject a chance to answer, is evidence of malice, not of good intention.

Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the author, the editors, and the publisher who cause the publication of a libelous article are all responsible for the defamation.

Disposition

The petitions were dismissed, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of all the accused for four counts of libel, with the award of damages, was sustained.

Remember This

Memorize this line: press freedom is not a license to run roughshod over the rights of others, and the presumption of malice under Article 354 stands unless good intention and justifiable motive are shown. Examiners use this case to test the balance between freedom of expression and libel, the requisites of fair comment against a public official, and the liability of editors and publishers under Article 360.