G.R. No.

156183

February 28, 2007

NICASIO I. ALCANTARA, Petitioner vs. VICENTE C. ONCE a!" #$e EO LE OF T%E %ILI CORONA, J.:

INES, Respondents.

DECISION This is a petition for review on certiorari1 from a decision2 and resol tion! of the Co rt of "ppeals #C"$. In 1%%&' respondent (icente C. Ponce filed a strin) of criminal complaints a)ainst petitioner Nicasio I. "lcantara and his famil*' hereafter the "lcantaras' incl din) one for estafa a)ainst petitioner in the +a,ati Prosec tor-s Office doc,eted as I.S. No. %&.!%/0&. In essence' respondent Ponce alle)ed that petitioner had swindled him o t of !'111'111 shares of 2loro Cement Corporation. It was in the co rse of the preliminar* investi)ation of the complaint for estafa that respondent Ponce' shortl* after )ivin) his s r.re3oinder affidavit' 0 s 4mitted to the investi)atin) prosec tor a newsletter/ p rportin) to 4e a 4elated anne5 to the affidavit. It was prefaced with the 6 otation 72or ever* e5traordinar* fort ne there is a )reat crime7 and the te5t8 "n e5ample is +arcos. 9e need not disc ss this. Second e5ample is the "lcantaras. a$ Overshipment of lo): 4$ ;and )ra44in): c$ Corr ption of p 4lic office: d$ Corporate )ra44in). The newsletter then went on to disc ss SEC Case No. 2/1& which' in the s r.re3oinder affidavit' respondent Ponce descri4ed as 4ein) the forefather of all the cases he had filed a)ainst the "lcantaras. In SEC Case No. 2/1& which the Sec rities and E5chan)e Commission en banc decided a)ainst him' Ponce acc sed the "lcantaras of defra din) him of his shares in Ili)an Cement Corporation. On Decem4er !' 1%%&' petitioner filed a complaint for li4el a)ainst respondent Ponce with the +a,ati Prosec tor-s Office< in connection with the aforesaid newsletter. =e claimed that8 #1$ the statements therein were defamator*: #2$ respondent had circ lated it in the +a,ati Prosec tor-s Office and #!$ the newsletter co ld not 4e considered an anne5 to the s r.re3oinder 4eca se respondent had not attached it to the said affidavit 4 t had )iven it thereafter. The preliminar* investi)ation was cond cted 4* Cit* Prosec tor Imelda P. Sa lo). On +arch 1&' 1%%>' Prosec tor Sa lo) iss ed a resol tion& findin) pro4a4le ca se for li4el and recommendin) the filin) of an information> in co rt. Thereafter' the case was filed with the Re)ional Trial Co rt of +a,ati and raffled to ? d)e Tran6 il Salvador of @ranch <!.
1awphi1.net

=owever' respondent Ponce filed a petition for review with the Secretar* of ? stice' who reversed the Cit* Prosec tor in a resol tion dated 2e4r ar* 2>' 2111. % This reversal was 4ased on the findin) that the newsletter was a privile)ed comm nication' havin) 4een s 4mitted to the investi)atin) prosec tor @en3amin R. @a tista as an intended anne5 to respondent-s s r.re3oinder. The Secretar* of ? stice th s directed the withdrawal of the information. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration11 4 t it was denied.11 Petitioner elevated the matter via petition for certiorari to the C" where it was doc,eted as C".A.R. SP No. <1/0!. In a decision dated " ) st 2%' 2112' the C" fo nd that the Secretar* of ? stice committed )rave a4 se of discretion' set aside the latter-s resol tion and directed the reinstatement of the criminal case.12 "fter ns ccessf ll* movin) for reconsideration in the Department of ? stice' respondent Ponce attempted to elevate the matter to the S preme Co rt 4* wa* of a petition for review on certiorari. The case was doc,eted as A.R. No. 1/&11/. =owever' we denied respondent Ponce-s motion for e5tension for time to file his petition1! as well as his s 4se6 ent motions for reconsideration. In the meantime' however' 4efore C".A.R. SP No. <1/0! was decided' the Office of the +a,ati Cit* Prosec tor' in deference to the resol tion of the ? stice Secretar*' filed a motion to withdraw information'

which the trial co rt )ranted on Septem4er 2>' 2111. 10 The trial co rt r led that the a4sence of the essential element of p 4licit* precl ded the commission of the crime of li4el. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the withdrawal 4 t the trial co rt denied the motion in an order dated +arch 21' 2112. 1/ On ? ne 1&' 2112' petitioner filed another petition for certiorari in the C"' doc,eted as C".A.R. SP No. &11>%. In this case' the C" rendered the assailed decision. The principal 6 estion for o r consideration is whether or not the C"' in its decision in C".A.R. SP No. &11>%' )ravel* erred in findin) that ? d)e Salvador had not committed )rave a4 se of discretion for )rantin) the withdrawal of the information for li4el a)ainst respondent Ponce. The crime of li4el' as defined in "rticle !/! of the Revised Penal Code' 1< has the followin) elements8 #1$ imp tation of a crime' vice or defect' real or ima)inar*' or an* act' omission' condition' stat s or circ mstance: #2$ p 4licit* or p 4lication: #!$ malice: #0$ direction of s ch imp tation at a nat ral or 3 ridical person' or even a dead person and #/$ tendenc* to ca se the dishonor' discredit or contempt of the person defamed. The fact al antecedents are ndisp ted. The onl* iss e is whether or not the controversial newsletter constit ted privile)ed comm nication' which wo ld e5empt it from li4el. "ccordin) to the Special 2ifth Division of the C"8 It is a settled principle in this 3 risdiction that statements made in the co rse of 3 dicial proceedin)s are a4sol tel* privile)ed. This a4sol te privile)e remains re)ardless of the defamator* tenor and the presence of malice if the same are relevant' pertinent or material to the ca se in hand or s 43ect of the in6 ir*. The lone re6 irement imposed to maintain the cloa, of a4sol te privile)e is the test of relevancy. In this case' a readin) of the S r.Re3oinder "ffidavit' contrar* to petitioner-s s 4mission' instantl* shows that there was s fficient reference to the 7newsletter7 which 3 stified the ? stice Secretar* and respondent ? d)e in holdin) that private respondent act all* intended the said article to 4e incl ded as an anne5 attached to said pleadin) and that the same was merel* omitted and 4elatedl* s 4mitted to Prosec tor @a tista d rin) the preliminar* investi)ation. S ch 7s fficient reference7 is shown 4* the fact that the newsletter is a4o t SEC Case No. 2/1& the ver* same case 4ein) disc ssed 4* private respondent in pa)es > to 12 of his S r.Re3oinder "ffidavit and hence' petitioner-s claim that "nne5 727 mentioned to)ether with "nne5 7E7' 4oth articles showin) the 7devio s mane verin)7 of petitioner in the said case' refers to another article. "nd even if the s pposed E5hi4it 727 co ld refer also to that article 7So The P 4lic +a* Bnow'7 s ch circ mstance will not e5cl de the s 43ect 7newsletter7 as an intended anne5 to the said pleadin) as in fact private respondent e5plicitl* mentioned 7articles7 witho t statin) that there were onl* two #2$ partic lar articles 4ein) referred or which of those articles ca sed to 4e p 4lished 4* his co nsel. "s the ? stice Secretar* opined and which position the respondent ? d)e adopted' the 7newsletter7 containin) the defamator* statement is relevant and pertinent to the criminal complaint for estafa then nder preliminar* investi)ation. The crime of estafa involves deceit' dishonest* and other fra d lent acts. The incl sion in the S r.Re3oinder "ffidavit of the 7newsletter7 disc ssin) the alle)ed 7corporate )ra44in)7 4* petitioner will tend to s pport private respondent-s case of estafa a)ainst petitioner insofar as s ch alle)ed 7corporate )ra44in)7 will hi)hli)ht or manifest petitioner-s propensit* for dishonest dealin) or fra d lent machinations. There is therefore no do 4t that the s 43ect 7newsletter7 is relevant and pertinent to the criminal complaint for estafa' and hence the same comes within the protective cloa, of a4sol tel* privile)ed comm nications as to e5empt private respondent from lia4ilit* for li4el or dama)es. In determinin) the iss e of relevanc* of statements made in 3 dicial proceedin)s' co rts have adopted a li4eral attit de 4* resolvin) all do 4ts in favor of relevanc*. Th s' in People vs. Aquino' o r S preme Co rt has emphasiCed that 7it is the r le that what is relevant or pertinent sho ld 4e li4erall* constr ed to favor the writer' and the words are not to 4e scr tiniCed with microscopic intensit*. The doctrine of privile)ed comm nication has a practical p rpose.

555 555 555 P 4lication in li4el means ma,in) the defamator* matter' after it has 4een written' ,nown to someone other than the person to whom it has 4een written. There is p 4lication if the material is comm nicated to a third person. 9hat is material is that a third person has read or heard the li4elo s statement' for 7a man-s rep tation is the estimate in which others hold him' not the )ood opinion which he has of himself.7 O r S preme Co rt has esta4lished the r le that when a p 4lic officer' in the dischar)e of his or her official d ties' sends a comm nication to another officer or to a 4od* of officers' who have a duty to perform with respect to the subject matter of the communication, such communication does not amount to publication . "ppl*in) this r le 4* analo)* to the present case' private respondent-s s 4mission of the 7newsletter7 intended as an anne5 to his S r.Re3oinder "ffidavit in I.S. No. %&.!%/0& to Prosec tor @a tista who was then cond ctin) the preliminar* investi)ation in said case' does not amo nt to p 4lication for the reason that the sendin) of s ch material was made specificall* for the p rpose of incl din) the same as evidence in the preliminar* investi)ation. That s ch s 4mission was 4elatedl* made does not ta,e o t the material from the a4sol tel* privile)ed comm nication r le. Prosec tor @a tista had a le)al d t* to perform with respect to the s 43ect comm nication' which is to consider the same alon) with the other evidence s 4mitted 4* private respondent as complainant in I.S. no. %&.!%/0&' in determining the existence of probable cause for the commission of the crime of estafa and that petitioner as accused-defendant therein should be tried for such offense. Dnder the circ mstances and in the lawf l e5ercise of private respondent-s ri)ht to present evidence in s pport of his acc sations a)ainst petitioner in the criminal complaint for estafa' 9e fail to see how s ch s 4mission of doc mentar* evidence omitted from the anne5es to the S r. Re3oinder "ffidavit' co ld amo nt to p 4lication that wo ld )ive rise to private respondent-s lia4ilit* for a li4el char)e especiall* when there is no proof of the alle)ed circ lation of copies of the s 43ect 7newsletter7 e5cept to the Cit* Prosec tor-s Office of +a,ati wherein I.S. No. %&.!%/0& was then in the preliminar* investi)ation sta)e. Petitioner-s fee4le ar) ment that Prosec tor @a tista remains a third person 4eca se the s 43ect 7newsletter7 was never incl ded or formall* offered as evidence' hardl* convinces Ds to hold that there was act al p 4lication for p rpose of findin) a prima facie case for li4el a)ainst the private respondent. =e m st 4e reminded that the case for estafa was still at the preliminar* investi)ation sta)e and there is no re6 irement of a 7formal offer7 of s ch doc mentar* evidence or s pportin) doc ments to esta4lish pro4a4le ca se #citations omitted$.1& Since the newsletter was presented d rin) the preliminar* investi)ation' it was vested with a privile)ed character. 9hile Philippine law is silent on the 6 estion of whether the doctrine of a4sol te privile)e e5tends to statements made in preliminar* investi)ations or other proceedin)s preparator* to the act al trial' the D.S. case of Borg v. Boas1> ma,es a cate)orical declaration of the e5istence of s ch protection8 It is horn4oo, learnin) that the actions and tterances in 3 dicial proceedin)s so far as the act al participants therein are concerned and &re'()(!ary *#e&* 'ea"(!+ #o ,u"(-(a' a-#(o! o. a! o..(-(a' !a#ure $a/e bee! +(/e! ab*o'u#e &r(/('e+e. Of partic lar interest are proceedin)s leadin) p to prosec tions or attempted prosec tions for crime 555 E"F written char)e or information filed with the prosec tor or the co rt is not li4elo s altho )h proved to 4e false and nfo nded. 2 rthermore' the information )iven to a prosec tor 4* a private person for the p rpose of initiatin) a prosec tion is protected 4* the same cloa, of imm nit* and cannot 4e sed as a 4asis for an action for defamation. #Emphasis o rs$ The r lin) in Borg is pers asive in this 3 risdiction. 9e see no reason wh* we sho ld not adopt it. 2 rthermore' the newsletter 6 alified as 7a comm nication made bona fide pon an* s 43ect.matter in which the part* comm nicatin) has an interest . . . made to a person havin) a correspondin) interest or d t*' altho )h it contained EinFcriminator* matter which witho t this privile)e wo ld 4e slandero s and actiona4le.71% 9hile the doctrine of privile)ed comm nication can 4e a4 sed' and its a4 se can lead to )reat hardships' to allow li4el s its to prosper strictl* on this acco nt will )ive rise to even )reater hardships. The doctrine itself rests on p 4lic polic* which loo,s to the free and nfettered administration of 3 stice. 21 It is as a r le applied li4erall*.21 The one o4stacle that those pleadin) the defense of privile)ed comm nication m st h rdle is the test of relevanc*. Dnder this test' a matter alle)ed in the co rse of the proceedin)s need not 4e in ever* case material to the iss es presented 4 t sho ld 4e le)itimatel* related to the iss es or 4e so pertinent to the

controvers* that it ma* 4ecome the s 43ect of in6 ir* in the co rse of trial. 22 =ere' the controversial statements were made in the conte5t of a criminal complaint a)ainst petitioner' al4eit for other' separate acts involvin) )reed and deceit' and were disclosed onl* to the official investi)atin) the complaint. ;i4erall* appl*in) the privile)ed comm nication doctrine' these statements were still relevant to the complaint nder investi)ation 4eca se' li,e the averments therein' the* also involved petitioner-s alle)ed rapacit* and deceitf lness. 0%EREFORE' the instant petition is here4* 1ENIE1 and the Septem4er 1!' 2112 decision and Novem4er 21' 2112 resol tion of the Co rt of "ppeals in C".A.R. SP No. &11>% AFFIR2E1. Costs a)ainst petitioner. SO OR1ERE1.