Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
SPECIAL NINTH DIVISION
JRV CICL-IS-NO. 08-1614,
Petitioner,
-versus-REGIONAL TRIAL COURTOF MARIKINA BRANCH192, THE PEOPLE OF
THEPHILIPPINES AND CELINED. QUANICO,
Respondents
CA G.R. SP No. 125708
Members:
BARZA, R. F.
Acting Chairperson
LOPEZ,
and
INTING
,
J.J.
Promulgated:December 21, 2012
X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
DECISION
LOPEZ, J.:
On August 4, 2008, Celine D. Quanico filed a complaint for libel with the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Marikinaagainst Justine P. Dimaano, Francesca
Vanessa S. Fugen,Roberto Armando C. Hidalgo, Danielle Vicaldo, Anthony Jay
L.Foronda and JRV CICL-IS-N o. 08-1614 (JRV for brevity), whowas sixteen years old
at the time the alleged offense wascommitted.1
Quanico and Dimaano, et al. are members of Multiply.com2, a website that
allows the members to post
* Acting Chairperson, per Amended Office Order No. 444-12-ABR, dated December
17, 2012
1.Rollo, p. 71. Complaint-Affidavit.N.B.Justine P. Dimaano, Francesca Vanessa S.
Fugen, Roberto Armando C. Hidalgo, Danielle Vicaldo,Anthony Jay Foronda and JRV
CICL-IS-No. 08-1614 are subsequently and collectively referred to asDimaano, et al.
2.Multiply was asocial networking servicewith an emphasis on allowing users to
share media such as photos, videos and blog entries with their "real-world"
network. On Multiply, a user's network wasmade up of their direct contacts, as well
as others who are closely connected to them through their first-degree
relationships. Additionally, users were encouraged to specify the nature of their
relationshipwithone another, making it possible to share content with their entire
network of closely related people, or subsets thereof including friends, family,
professional contacts, and so on.Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiply_
%28website%29as posted on December 4, 2012.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708DECISIONPage 2 of 11 ___________________

blogs3 that are accessible to an entire network of closely related people including
friends, family, professional contacts,and so on. In her Complaint-Affidavit, Quanico
alleged that:
18. On April 10, 2008, I was informed by Athena Jan F. Valenzuela by way of
aconversation over cellular phones, that she,together with Christine Michelle Fua
receivednotices in their Multiply Inbox stating that anew blog entry by Justine P.
Dimaano akatatzmenot was posted on April 6, 2008 at 1:07pm as per Multiply
time. The blog entry wasentitled Meet MY backstabber FRIEND;p. andcan be
accessed by typing this web address:http://tatzmenot.multiply.com/journal/item25.
Xxx
27. Upon personal viewing and reading of the contents of the subject blog entry,
Irecognized that the same was a conversationwhich had transpired between myself
usingceline_quanico and Justine P. Dimaano usingtatzmenot2001 as instant
messenger namesrespectively, on Yahoo Messenger. However,Dimaano maliciously
edited my chat name intoJOPAY and posted the said conversation in herMultiply
page for every member of her networkand possibly other persons, to see and feast
on.
28. Several persons with their picturesdisplayed on their Multiply accounts
placedtheir comments, further mocking me withcontempt and insults. Worse, details
confirmingmy identity were placed like deliberate andobvious hints in a sarcastic
fashion of a futileattempt to cover-up. Xxx
32. The following are specific lines of defamatory imputations taken from the
wholetext of the blog and the responses thereto, withcorresponding page numbers
for reference:a) By Justin P. Dimaano aka tatz tatin: xxx"I super frikin wanting to kill
her and make herthe frikin next assuming queen!:))p.6"sobra! ang looser eh )" p.
6"hahaha )thinking.......bored..... just want toruin her reputation!:)) p. 7
xxx"sobra! shes a mother freakin dead kid mehn!
3A blog is a shared on-line journal where people can post diary entries about their
personal experiencesand hobbies. Seehttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/blogas
posted on December 5, 2012.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708DECISIONPage 3 of 11 ___________________

LOSER ) I bet she doesn't have real friendslike me miss you dane!!! ) p. 9"very
much... tsk ;)m thinkn of an alternativeway to kick her ass off this world p. 10"oo
nga mukha bakla ) hahaha how I wish nameron sxang balls so I cud kick it as
hard as Ican ) haha super looser nya kytes ) miss you too kytes!!! Mwax!!:) p.
10"hahahaha lets not kill, lets just pull that bitcha little to the ground ) rather
make it allthroughout to hell p. 10 xxx
d) by [JRV CICL-IS-No. 08-1614]:"haha. Nung una plang about the bday thingalam ko
na kung sino tong B-I-T-C-H na toeh!!! Hahaha ... I pity her!! get a LIFE youstupid
fuckin' playin' innocent girl!! Nakitanaba nia to? How I wish nakita nia. Don'tmess up
with my girl here!! Gago paupak mona kay JANTABA!! Para matapos na to.:))"I

figured!! She's a fucking LOSER!!! LOSERNA NGA BITCH PA, AT BACKSTABBER PA!!!
tsss..biruin mo tatin ngkasya un sa isangpanget na pangangatwan NIA!!!"~sorry ah
mas mukha pa akong galit sayo ehno. hahaha.:)) loveyou tatz!! p. 7
[Emphasis Ours.]
On August 12, 2009, the City Prosecutor issued aresolution dismissing the complaint
for lack of probable cause,declaring that malice cannot be inferred from the
statementsand that [t]he word 'JOPAY' makes no clear reference to thecomplainant
as the object of the blog.4 Quanico moved forreconsideration but the motion was
denied. 5She then filed apetition for review with the Department of Justice
(DOJ),which reversed the findings of the City Prosecutor in its March24, 2011
Resolution,
viz :
Concededly, all the elements of libel arepresent in the instant case. For one, just by
reading the title of the blog Meet MY backstabber FRIEND , an imputation of
acondition, status or circumstance may already
4Rollo, pp. 20-21.5Id., p. 22. September 11, 2009 Resolution by Prosecutor Linda
Adame-Conos.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708DECISIONPage 4 of 11 ___________________

[be] discerned from its contents. Calling aperson a backstabber , ugly , frikin
face ,mother frikin dead kid , looser , bakla ,bitch , ass , liar within the
knowledge of other persons is defamatory, because there is animputation of a
condition or status which tendsto cause dishonor or contempt of the offendedparty.
It thus exposes the complainant tounnecessary contempt and public ridicule every
time those written words are attributed to her. xxx xxx [C]ontrary to the findings of
theinvestigating prosecutor, the imputation wasdirected at the complainant. Basic is
the rulethat in order to maintain a libel suit, it isessential that the victim be
identifiable,although it is not necessary that she be named. The affidavits of
complainant's three (3)witnesses reveal that they recognized her as theobject of the
libelous statements not only probably but with a high level of certainty. Thefacts
and circumstances enumerated on the blogperfectly fit the description of the
complainant. xxxWHEREFORE, premises considered, theassailed resolution is
hereby REVERSED andSET ASIDE. Accordingly, the City Prosecutor of Marikina is
hereby directed to file thecorresponding information for LIBEL against theabovenamed respondents and report the actiontaken directly to my Office not later than
ten(10) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.6(Emphasis andannotations omitted.)
Consequently, on March 13, 2012, an Information7for
6Id., pp. 26-28.
7Id., pp. 30-33. The Information contained the following certification:
This is to certify that I have conducted a preliminary investigation on this case; that
theaccused were informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against
them; that they weregiven the opportunity to submit controverting evidence; that
this Office dismissed the complaint for Libel against the respondents; that a
Petition for Review was filed by complainant; that in aResolution promulgated on

March 24, 2011, the Undersecretary FRANCISCO F. BARAAN IIIreversed and set aside
the earlier resolution dismissing the complaint and directed the Office of theCity
Prosecutor of Marikina to file the corresponding information for LIBEL against
therespondents as based on the evidence presented there is reasonable ground to
believe that the crimehas been committed and that the accused are probably guilty
thereof. Since one of the accusedappeared to be a CICL at the time of the
commission of the offense, the case was referred back to the Office for the purpose
of determining discernment. That the LSWDO was tasked tointerview the CICL who
issued a Certification that the CICL appears to have ACTED WITHDISCERNMENT, I
further certify that this Information is being filed with the approval of theCity
Prosecutor.
(signed)
LINDA ADAME-CONOS

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708DECISIONPage 5 of 11 ___________________

libel was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of MarikinaCity against Dimaano,
et al., and the case was raffled toBranch 192.On March 21, 2012, JRV filed a Motion
for Suspensionof Proceedings and for Judicial Determination of ProbableCause8,
positing that the RTC should suspend theproceedings and defer the issuance of
warrant of arrest untilthe DOJ has definitively resolved movant's motion
forreconsideration.9In the alternative, JRV prayed for thedismissal of the case for
lack of probable cause.10According to her, the alleged libelous statements did not
sufficiently identify Jopay as the complainant. The statements were notmalicious
since the word fuck and bitch are commonexpressions of anger and displeasure,
and not employed toslander.11
Moreover, petitioner was sixteen (16) years oldwhen the alleged offense was
committed and she should beamply protected from such traumatic experience
under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.12
On May 16, 2012, the RTC found probable cause for theissuance of warrant of arrest
against Dimaano, et al., to wit:
Records show that on March 21, 2012, JRC CICL-IS-No. 08-1614, through
counsel,filed a Motion for Suspension of Proceedings and Judicial Determination of
Probable Cause.Records further show that her co-accused, JUSTINE P. DIMAANO ,
FRANCESCA VANESSAS. FUGEN, and ROBERTO ARMANDOHIDALGO, through their
respective counsel,subsequently filed similar Motions.
Deputy City Prosecutor MCLE Compliance No. IV-0004346[Emphases Ours]
8Rollo, p. 34.9Id., p. 34.10Id., p. 38.11Id., pp. 36-38.12Id., p. 36.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708DECISIONPage 6 of 11 ___________________

During the hearing on April 18, 2012, theCourt directed the Public and
PrivateProsecutors to submit their Comment on theMotions respectively filed by the
CICL and theaccused.

On May 4, 2012, the private complainant,through counsel, with the conformity of

Assistant City Prosecutor Gregorio P. Subong, Jr., filed her Opposition to the subject
Motions.
After a careful perusal of the Informationin the above-captioned case and the
documentsattached thereto, the Court finds the existenceof probable cause for the
issuance of Warrantsof Arrest against the accused, JUSTINE P.DIMAANO, FRANCESCA
VANESSA S. FUGEN, JRC CICL-IS-No. 08-1614, ROBERTOARMANDO HIDALGO,
DANIELLE VICALDO, andANTHONY JAY L. FORONDA. xxxSO ORDERED.13
JRV filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.Aggrieved, she filed
this petition for certiorari with prayer forthe issuance of a temporary restraining
order. 14
On July 30, 2012, the Court issued a Resolutiondirecting private respondent
Celine Quanico to file herComment within ten (10) days from notice, furnishing a
copy upon petitioner who may file a Reply within five (5) days fromreceipt of
Comment. Action on the prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order was
held in abeyance pendingsubmission of such Comment.15 Private Respondent's
Comment was filed on September 6,2012.16Considering that no reply was filed as
of November21, 2012,17the case, as well as the prayer for issuance of
13Id., p. 13.14Id., p. 11.15Id., p. 50.16Id., p. 61.17Id., p. 91, dorsal portion. Judicial
Records Division report dated November 21, 2012 that no Reply was

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708DECISIONPage 7 of 11 ___________________

temporary restraining order, is now submitted for decision.
In her Petition for Certiorari, JRV asserts that the RTC of Marikina gravely abused its
discretion when it refused todismiss the Information in spite of the patent lack of
probablecause. She reiterates that: (1) the words bitch and fuck arenot libelous;
(2) that the blog did not give sufficient descriptionto identify Jopay as private
respondent Quanico; and (3) thatpetitioner was sixteen (16) years old when the
alleged offensewas committed. The petition is bereft of merit.At the outset, We
remind the parties that the sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of
errors of jurisdictionincluding the commission of grave abuse of
discretionamounting to lack of jurisdiction, and does not include acorrection of
public respondent's evaluation of evidence andfactual findings thereon.18 By grave
abuse of discretion ismeant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment asis
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.19 The abuse of discretionmust be grave as where
the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasionof
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in
contemplation of law.20 Hence, inthis case, the sole issue is whether the presiding
judge actedarbitrarily or despotically in rendering the assailed Orders.
filed as of entry.18cf. United Coconut Planters Bank v. Alberto T. Looyuko and
Jimmi T. Go, G.R. No. 156337, September 28, 2007 citing Microsoft Corporation v.
Best Deal Computer Center Corporation, 438 Phil. 408, 413(2002).19Id., citing
Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies v. Oriental Wood Processing Corporation, G.R.
No.152228, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 650, 661.20Ibid.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708DECISIONPage 8 of 11 ___________________

When the Information is filed with the court, the first andforemost task of the judge
is to determine the existence ornon-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the
accused.Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances aswould lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believethat the offense charged in the
Information or any offenseincluded therein has been committed by the person
sought tobe arrested.21 In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause,the
judge shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and thesupporting documents
submitted by the fiscal regarding theexistence of probable cause and, on the basis
thereof, issue awarrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds noprobable
cause, he may disregard the fiscals report andrequire the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses toaid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.22
Before issuing warrants of arrest, judgesmerely determine the probability, not the
certainty, of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de
novohearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They just personally
review the initial determination of theprosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it
is supported by substantial evidence.23 In this case, the respondent judge 24 made
a finding of probable cause [a]fter a careful perusal of the Information inthe abovecaptioned case and the documents attached
21cf. Enrique V. Viudez II v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152889, June 5, 2009 citing Baltazar v. People,G.R. No.
174016, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 278, 293-294.22See AAA v. Hon. Antonio A. Carnonell, G.R. No. 171465, June 8,
2007 citing Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. Nos. L-82585, L-82827, and L-83979, November 14, 1988, 167 SCRA 393,
398.23Id., citing Webb v. De Leon, 317 Phil. 758 (1995), at 793.24Judge Graldine C Fiel-Macaraig, May 16. 2012
Order, Rollo, p. 13.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708DECISIONPage 9 of 11 ___________________

thereto25. While the judge did not enumerate the documentsperused, these must
consist of the DOJ's March 24, 2011Resolution26as well as the documents submitted
by the city prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause.Apparently, the
respondent judge even evaluated the initialfindings of lack of probable cause by the
City Prosecutor sincepetitioner herself submitted a copy of the August 12,
2009Resolution along with her Motion for Suspension of Proceedings and for
Judicial Determination of ProbableCause27.
It is noteworthy that petitioner never questioned how thetrial court reached the
conclusion that there was probablecause. She only questioned the conclusion itself:
i.e. that thetrial court erred in concluding that the words bitch andfuck are
libelous and that there was sufficient description toidentify Quanico as the subject
of the blog. In other words,petitioner is merely questioning the trial court's
evaluation of evidence or its factual findings which, We reiterate, are not
25Ibid.26Pertinent portions of the Resolution reads:

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708DECISIONPage 10 of 11 ___________________

within the ambit of a petition for certiorari.Finally, anent petitioner's invocation that
she was sixteen(16) years old when the alleged offense was committed andshould

be protected under the Juvenile Justice and WelfareAct of 2006, We only need to
bring her attention to the City Prosecutor's Certification in the Information, to wit:
xxx This is to certify that I haveconducted a preliminary investigation on thiscase;
that the accused were informed of thecomplaint and of the evidence
submittedagainst them; that they were given theopportunity to submit
controverting evidence; xxx.
Since one of the accused appeared tobe a CICL at the time of the commission of the
offense, the case was referred back tothe Office for the purpose of
determiningdiscernment. That the LSWDO was taskedto interview the CICL who
issued aCertification that the CICL appears to haveACTED WITH DISCERNMENT.
I furthercertify that this Information is being filed withthe approval of the City
Prosecutor.
(signed)LINDA ADAME-CONOSDeputy City ProsecutorMCLE Compliance No. IV0004346[Emphasis Ours]
28
WITH THE STATED REASONS, the petition is DISMISSED.SO ORDERED.
MARIO V. LOPEZ Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ROMEO F. BARZA Associate Justice
SOCORRO B. INTING Associate Justice
28Id., p. 33.

CA-G.R. SP No. 125708DECISIONPage 11 of 11 ___________________

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ROMEO F. BARZA
Acting Chairperson, Special Ninth Division