MODULE 5
V. ESSENTIAL LEGAL CONCEPTS
STARE DECISIS
Fermin v. People
G.R. No. 157643 28 March 2008
Nachura, J.
FACTS:
On complaint of spouses Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo
Gutierrez, 2 criminal informations for libel were filed against
Cristinelli
Salazar Fermin and Bogs C. Tugas before the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City.
Fermin was charged being the publisher of “Gossip Tabloid” while
Tugas was editor-in-chief.
The June 14, 1995 headline and lead story of the tabloid says that it
is improbable for Annabelle Rama to go to the US should it be true
that she is evading her conviction in an estafa case here in the
Philippines for she and husband Eddie Gutierrez have more
problems/cases to confront there. This was said to be due to their,
especially Annabelle's, using fellow Filipinos’ money, failure to
remit
proceeds to the manufacturing company of the cookware they were
selling and not being on good terms with the latter.
The Court of Appeals acquitted Tugas on account of nonparticipation
but Fermin's conviction was affirmed.
Fermin's motion for reconsideration was denied hence, this petition.
She argues that she had no knowledge and participation in the
publication of the article, that the article is not libelous and is
covered
by the freedom of the press.
Whether or not Cristy Fermin is guilty of libel. (YES)
HELD/RATIO:
Proof of knowledge of and participation in the publication is not
required, if the accused has been specifically identified as “author,
editor, or proprietor” or “printer/publisher” of the publication.
Petitioner was not only the “publisher,” but also the “president” and
“chairperson.” Petitioner’s criminal guilt should be affirmed,
whether
or not she had actual knowledge and participation.
The elements of libel were present.
1) Evident imputation of the crime of malversation (converting
money for personal use), of vices or defects for being
fugitives from the law (evading prosecution in America) and
of being a wastrel
2) Attribution made publicly. Gossip Tabloid had a nationwide
circulation.
3) The victims were identified and identifiable.
4) The article reeks of malice, as it tends to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of the complainants.
5) Malice in law - the article was malicious in itself; the
imputations were false.
6) Malice in fact - there was motive to talk ill against
complainants during the electoral campaign as Fermin is a
close friend of Eddie's opponent in the Congressional race.
While complainants are considered public figures for being
personalities in the entertainment business, media people do not
have the unbridled license to malign their honor and dignity by
indiscriminately airing fabricated and malicious comments, whether
in broadcast media or in print, about their personal lives.
Note: CA erred in acquitting Tugas, he being the editor-in-chief. But
the SC cannot reinstate the ruling of the trial court convicting Bogs
Tugas because with his acquittal by the CA as that would run afoul
of his constitutional right against double jeopardy.