Borjal v CA identify private respondent Wenceslao as the
organizer of the conference. As observed by
Facts:
Note: nagfile siya ug complaint sa NPC for unethical
conduct plus nag file sad siya ug criminal case for
libel kaso nadismiss for insufficiency of evidence.
Hence, the present petition.
A civil action for libel was filed against both Borjal and
Soliven for writing and publishing several articles that
are allegedly offensive and derogatory to complainant
Wenceslao, who was the elected executive director
of FNCLT.
Gist of the articles: unnamed self proclaimed hero of
the EDSA revolution/ conference organizer goes
around conducting seminars and charging huge fees
for such (Feel niya directed towards him)
RTC and CA: ruled in favor of Wenceslao
Issues:
1. Are the elements for libel satisfied? Is the element
of identifiability is present?
2. Are the articles qualifiedly privileged
communication? (Those that are not actionable
unless made with malice)
3. Will the public official doctrine apply? (Doctrine of
Fair Comment)
Held:
1. No. Elements: a. Defamatory Imputation b.
Publication or Publicity c. Identifiability d. Malice
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the
victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that
he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended
party recognized himself as the person attacked or
defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third
person could identify him as the object of the libelous
publication. Regrettably, these requisites have not
been complied with in the case at bar.
The questioned articles written by Borjal do not
he is involved in a public issue.
petitioners, there were millions of "heroes" of Note again: The doctrine of fair comment means that
the EDSA Revolution and anyone of them while in general every discreditable imputation
could be "self-proclaimed" or an "organizer of publicly made is deemed false, because every man is
seminars and conferences." presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved,
and every false imputation is deemed malicious,
Significantly, private respondent himself nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is
entertained doubt that he was the person directed against a public person in his public
spoken of in Borjal's columns. Identification is capacity, it is not necessarily actionable.
grossly inadequate when even the alleged
offended party is himself unsure that he was In order that such discreditable imputation to a public
the object of the verbal attack official may be actionable, it must either be a false
allegation of fact or a comment based on a false
2. Yes. The concept of privileged supposition.
communications is implicit in the freedom of Here, his articles were supported by documentary
the press and that privileged communications evidence (Granted if really directed against
must be protective of public opinion. Fair Wenceslao.)
commentaries on matters of public interest
are privileged and constitute a valid defense
in an action for libel or slander. (2 requisites
bona fide and not spill the walls....)
While, generally, malice can be presumed
from defamatory words, the privileged
character of a communication destroys the
presumption of malice. The burden of proving
actual malice then lies on plaintiff, private
respondent Wenceslao herein This he failed
to do.
Note: Malice connotes ill will or spite and
speaks not in response to duty but merely to
injure the reputation of the person defamed,
and implies an intention to do ulterior and
unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad
motive. It is the essence of the crime of libel.
Mere error or inaccuracy alone does not
prove actual malice. The press cannot be
held accountable for honest mistakes.
3. Yes. He is considered a public official
since the conference was imbued with public
interest. Even granting for the sake of
argument that he is not a public figure, he still
cannot do away with public scrutiny because