Tulfo v. People
GR Nos. 161032 and 161176
16 September 2008
Facts:
Atty. Ding So of the Bureau of Customs filed four separate
Informations against Erwin Tulfo, Susan Cambri, Rey Salao, Jocelyn
Barlizo, and Philip Pichay, accusing them of libel in connection with the
publication of articles in the column Direct Hit of the daily tabloid
Remate. The column accused So of corruption, and portrayed him as an
extortionist and smuggler.
After trial, the RTC found Tulfo, et al. guilty of libel. The CA
affirmed the decision.
Issues:
1. Why was Borjal v. CA not applied to this case?
2. W/N the assailed articles are privileged.
3. W/N the assailed articles are fair commentaries.
Ruling:
1. Borjal was not applied to this case because:
a. Borjal stemmed from a civil action for damages based on
libel, and was not a criminal case.
b. The ruling in Borjal was that there was no sufficient
identification of the complainant.
c. The subject in Borjal was a private citizen, whereas in the
present case, the subject is a public official.
d. It was held in Borjal that the articles written by Art Borjal
were fair commentaries on matters of public interest.
2. NO. The columns were unsubstantiated attacks on Atty. So, and
cannot be countenanced as being privileged simply because the
target was a public official.
a. Even with the knowledge that he might be in error, even
knowing of the possibility that someone else may have
used Atty. Sos name, as Tulfo surmised, he made no
effort to verify the information given by his source or
3.
Velasco, Jr., J:
Elements of fair commentary (to be considered privileged):
b.
c.
It may be clich that the pen is mightier than the sword, but in this
particular case, the lesson to be learned is that such a mighty weapon
should not be wielded recklessly or thoughtlessly, but always guided by
conscience and careful thought.
Obiter 2:
A robust and independently free press is doubtless one of the most effective
checks on government power and abuses. Hence, it behooves government
functionaries to respect the value of openness and refrain from concealing
from media corruption and other anomalous practices occurring within
their backyard. On the other hand, public officials also deserve respect and
protection against false innuendoes and unfounded accusation of official
wrongdoing from an abusive press. As it were, the law and jurisprudence on
libel heavily tilt in favor of press freedom. The common but most unkind
perception is that government institutions and their officers and employees
are fair game to official and personal attacks and even ridicule. And the
practice on the ground is just as disconcerting. Reports and accusation of
official misconduct often times merit front page or primetime treatment,
while defenses set up, retraction issued, or acquittal rendered get no more,
if ever, perfunctory coverage. The unfairness needs no belaboring. The
balm of clear conscience is sometimes not enough.
Journalists are not storytellers or novelists who may just spin tales out of
fevered imaginings, and pass them off as reality. There must be some
foundation to their reports; these reports must be warranted by facts.
Freedom of expression as well as freedom of the press may not be
unrestrained, but neither must it be reined in too harshly.
Obiter 1: