LITO BAUTISTA AND JIMMY ALCANTARA, PETITIONERS, VS. SHARON G. CUNETA-PANGILINAN, RESPONDENT.

Bautista versus Cuneta-Pangilinan

The Case

This is a criminal case for libel that reached the Supreme Court on a question of procedure with constitutional weight. Lito Bautista and Jimmy Alcantara, the editor and associate editor of the tabloid Bandera, were charged with libel for articles written by a columnist and published in that paper, articles that described Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan in harsh and insulting terms. After the prosecution rested, the trial court granted the editors' demurrer to evidence and dismissed the criminal cases. The private complainant went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari, and that court revived the case. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the private complainant may thus attack a dismissal that operates as an acquittal, and whether the dismissal itself was correct. The case matters because it fixes two rules every practitioner must know: who may appeal in a criminal case, and what a demurrer to evidence granted by the trial court means for the right against double jeopardy.

Procedural History

Two informations for libel were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 212, against the columnist Pete Ampoloquio and against the petitioners Bautista and Alcantara. All the accused pleaded not guilty, and a joint pre-trial and trial followed. After the prosecution presented the private complainant and rested its case, the petitioners filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court. The trial court granted the demurrer and dismissed both criminal cases. The prosecution then moved to admit its comment on the demurrer, which had not been filed on time, and the trial court admitted it.

The private complainant, Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan, then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, asking that the trial court's orders be set aside. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, reversed the order granting the demurrer to evidence, and remanded the case to the trial court for the reception of the petitioners' evidence. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied. They then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the petition below was barred by double jeopardy and that the Court of Appeals erred in finding grave abuse of discretion.

Facts

In March and April of 2001, the tabloid Bandera published articles written by Pete Ampoloquio in his column. The articles described the private complainant as plastic, an ingrate, a mega-brat, and brain dead, and recounted that she had bad-mouthed a supporter of her husband and treated him like a hanger-on in private while appearing affectionate in public. The private complainant and her family learned of the articles and were shocked by them.

On the strength of her complaint, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City filed two informations for libel, one for each set of articles, naming Ampoloquio as author and Bautista and Alcantara as editor and associate editor of the publication. The informations alleged that the accused conspired with unknown directors and officers of the publishing corporation in causing the publication of the defamatory articles.

At trial, the prosecution presented the private complainant as its witness. When she testified, she did not identify Bautista and Alcantara, and nothing in her testimony touched on their actual participation in the publication of the articles. The prosecution then rested its case. The petitioners filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish their participation as conspirators and that the articles were not libelous for want of malice. The trial court granted the demurrer and dismissed the cases, noting that the prosecution had not filed any opposition and that its evidence failed to prove the petitioners' participation. The prosecution's later attempt to file its comment was admitted by the trial court, but the dismissal stood, and the case went up to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari filed by the private complainant before the Court of Appeals was barred by the petitioners' right against double jeopardy.
• Whether or not the private complainant had the legal personality to question, by certiorari, the trial court's order granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the criminal cases.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurrer to evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court governs the demurrer to evidence in criminal cases and provides:

Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. — After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.

This provision is the hinge of the case, because a demurrer granted under it is an adjudication on the merits that operates as an acquittal.

Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code defines who are responsible for libel and provides:

Article 360. Persons responsible. — 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 author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamation contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.

The Court cites this provision to show that the liability of an editor for a defamatory publication is statutory, which bears on whether the prosecution's evidence against the editors could ever be sufficient.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition below was indeed barred, because the grant of the demurrer to evidence amounted to a dismissal on the merits and therefore to an acquittal. Any further prosecution of the accused after an acquittal would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. The Court explained that after the prosecution rests, the trial court must evaluate whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt, and if it finds the evidence insufficient and grants the demurrer, the ruling is an adjudication on the merits that may no longer be appealed.

On the second issue, the Court held that the private complainant lacked the personality to bring the action. The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals is vested solely in the Office of the Solicitor General. The interest of the private complainant is limited to the civil liability arising from the offense. Since the petition before the Court of Appeals questioned the criminal aspect of the trial court's order and not the civil aspect, it should have been filed by the State through the Solicitor General, and the Court of Appeals should have dismissed it outright. The Court restated the rule in these terms:

If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court. It agreed with the Court of Appeals that the prosecution was not denied due process, since the prosecution had actively participated in the trial, had rested its case, and had been given the opportunity to oppose the demurrer, which it in fact did, albeit belatedly. The use of the word may in Section 23, Rule 119 makes the filing of an opposition directory rather than mandatory. But having found that the dismissal was an acquittal and that the petition was filed by a party without standing, the Court could not sustain the Court of Appeals' reversal. On the merits of the libel charge, the Court noted that under Article 360 the liability of an editor is statutory in nature, but this did not cure the procedural defects that barred the petition below.

Doctrine

First, the grant of a demurrer to evidence under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court is an adjudication on the merits and is tantamount to an acquittal. It may no longer be appealed, and any further prosecution of the accused would violate the right against double jeopardy.

Second, in a criminal case where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant is limited to the civil liability. Only the Office of the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal, whether the trial court dismissed the case or acquitted the accused. The private complainant may question such dismissal or acquittal only insofar as the civil liability is concerned, and may file a special civil action for certiorari on jurisdictional grounds in his own name, but not in the name of the People.

Third, the prosecution's failure to file an opposition to a demurrer to evidence is not a denial of due process, because the word may in Section 23, Rule 119 makes the opposition directory, not jurisdictional.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court's order granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the criminal cases against Bautista and Alcantara.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a demurrer to evidence granted by the trial court is an acquittal, and only the Solicitor General can appeal it on the criminal aspect. Examiners use this case to test double jeopardy after a demurrer, and the standing of a private complainant to bring a criminal case up on certiorari.