Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

GR No. L-12592.

March 8, 1918

The United States [plaintiff-appellee] vs Felipe Bustos et al [defendants-appellants]

Issue: Whether or not Bustos et al are Guilty of Libel.

Held: No. SC finds Bustos et al entitled to the rules of qualified privilege, growing out of constitutional
guaranties in our bill of rights. Instead of punishing citizens for an honest endeavor to improve the
public service, we should rather commend them for their good citizenship.

Art. 3, Sect. 4, 1987 Constitution:

Sect. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.

Qualified Privilege:

- Qualified Privilege which may be lost by proof of malice. A communication made bona fide upon
any subject matter in which the party communicating has an interest or in reference to which he has
a duty, is privileged, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, although it contain
criminatory matter which without this privilege would be slanderous and actionable (Harrison vs
Rush)

- Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their
truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake
of the individual. Personal injury is not necessary. The privilege is not defeated by the mere fact that
the communication is made in intemperate (i.e. lack of self-control) terms. Finally, if a party applies
to the wrong person through some natural and honest mistake as to the respective functions of
various officials, such an unintentional error would not take the case out of privilege.

Facts:

In 1915, 34 Pampanga residents signed a petition to the Executive Secretary charging Roman
Punsalan, justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol, Pampanga, with malfeasance in
office and asked for Punsalans removal. Specific charges are:
1. Francisca Polintan, desiring to to make complaint against Mariano de los Reyes, visited
the justice of the peace, who told her that he would draw the complaint for Php5; which
she paid Php3 and also kept Polintan in his house for 4 days as a servant, and took from
her 4 chickens and 12 gandus. (Theft?)
2. Valentin Sunga, being interested in a case regarding land currently on trial, went to the
justice of the peace to ascertain the trial, was told that he would win the case if he pid
Php50. Sunga gave nothing and a few days later was told that he had lost the case. The
justice told him he would win the case if he would pay Php50. (Bribery?)
3. Leoncio Quiambao, filed a complaint for assault. On the day of trial, the justice called
Quiambao over to his house and gave quaimbao Php30 and complaint was shelved.
(Bribery?)
Executive Secretary referred the case to the Court of First Instance. Judge of first instance found
the 1st count not proved and count 2 & 3 established. Judge of 1st Instance was of the opinion
that the Punsalan be removed from the position as justice of the peace.
Punsalan filed for a motion for new trial. Judge of 1st instance granted motion. Punsalan
asserted that he was a victim of persecution and that one Agustin Jaime (auxiliary justice of
peace) instituted charges for personal reasons. Judge of First Instance acquitted Pinsalan.
Criminal charges were filed against the 34 residents. Judge found almost all residents guilty and
sentenced each to pay a fine (Php10) and one thirty-second part of the cost or suffer subsidiary
imprisonment.
Almost all the residents (except Melecio Sabado & Fortunato Macalino) appealed following
assignments of error.
1. Erred in overruling the motion for new trial
2. Erred in refusing to permit defendants (residents) retire the objection inadvertently
interposed by counsel to the admission in evidence of the expediente administrative out
of which this accusation arose.
3. Erred in sustaining the objection of the prosecution (Punsalan) to the introducing in
evidence by the accused (residents) of the affidavits upon which the the petition
forming the basis of the libelous charge was based.
4. Erred in not holding that the libelous statement was unqualifiedly priviledged.
5. Erred in assuming and impliedly holding that the burden was on the defendants to show
that the alleged libelous statement were true and free from malice.
6. Erred in not acquitting defendants
7. Evidence failed to show defendants guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi