27 August 2014

In Re: Request for Legal Opinion on Libel

Dear Sir,
This is a response to your legal queries particularly about online libel. I
understand that the following circumstances are the backdrop of your query:
1. You had an outstanding loan which was due and payable to your lender.
2. As pre-requisite to your renewal of loan, you were required to settle your
current loan balance.
3. You made prompt payment to the lenders agent.
4. The said agent did not remit the same payment to her employer thus it
was reflected that you have not paid yet for the loan balance.
5. Hurt by the breach of trust done by said employee of the lender, you
posted some comments on your facebook account which she allegedly
considers libellous
6. Thus you came to my office for legal advice.
The following is my legal opinion upon considering the facts you presented.

I.

THE REMARKS ARE NOT LIBELLOUS.

A. What is Libel?
Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, libel is defined as a
public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or
any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the
dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one
who is dead. Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or
condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person
defamed; and, (d) existence of malice. [Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47971,
31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, 67]
B. The post did not identify any person.
On the other hand, to satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that at
least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the
defamatory statement. In the case of Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr. (16 SCRA 807) the
Supreme Court ruled that in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the
victim be identifiable (People vs. Monton, L-16772, November 30, 1962), although
it is not necessary that he be named (19 A.L.R. 116). In an earlier case, the high
court also declared that defamatory matter which does not reveal the identity of
the person upon whom the imputation is cast, affords no ground of action unless it be
shown that the readers of the libel could have identified the personality of the
individual defamed. (Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons 42 Phil. 760).

C. The post is justified by the betrayal of trust complainant has done to you.
In order to constitute malice, ill will must be personal. So if the ill will is engendered
by ones sense of justice or other legitimate or plausible motive, such feeling
negatives actual malice.[Aquino, Ramon C., The Revised Penal Code, Vol. III, Bk. II,
1997 Ed., citing People v. de los Reyes, Jr., 47 OG 3569]

D. Since weve established that your sense of justice was the cause of your
posting, the truth is your absolute defense.

In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it
appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with
good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be
admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with
respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be
acquitted.
It is important to remember that any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory
and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed
to be malicious, even if it be true; if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is
shown. There is malice when the author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or
spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who
claims to have been defamed. Truth then is not a defense, unless it is shown that the matter
charged as libelous was made with good motives and for justifiable ends.
II.

ONLINE LIBEL PROVISION

Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act :

The online libel provision is implicit in that it just updates Art. 353 of the
Revised Penal Code. Thus, all defences and jurisprudential guidelines are
available to you if ever a complaint would be based under RA 10175.

CONCLUSION:
In light of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that a case for libel cannot prosper
against you in court. In fact, the erring agent may even be charged by you or
her employer with Estafa under RPC Art. 315 (2) and Qualified Theft.

I hope this sheds light on your questions. Please do not hesitate to visit my law
office for further inquiries.