Republic of the Philippines
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of Manila
REINALDA UY GANNABAN, ET AL.
Complainants, I.S. NO. 03G-19951
- versus - LIBEL
CHARMAINE DELUTA, ET AL.
Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
Spouses Reinelda Uy-Gannaban and Adolfo Gannaban,
substantially averred in their complaint-affidavit that on May 16, 2003
respondent Rogelio Deluta and Charmaine Y. Deluta, father and
daughter, caused the publication in Abante, a tabloid newspaper, the
following libelous Notice to the Public:
“Ang lahat ng mga nagging biktima ng mag-
asawang Adolfo at Reinelda Uy-Gannaban, nasa
larawan, may kasong ESTAFA Criminal Case
Bilang 1166982 at BP 22 sa Pasig RTC ay
inaanyayahang agad na magsampa ng reklamo
laban sa dalawa upang mabigyang katarungan
and inyong kaapihan. Sila’y nahuli ng mga
tauhan ni Kap. Antonio na sina SPO2 Tiburcio,
PO2 Aguilar ant PO1 Beltran ng Barangka,
Marikina Police Station. Ang mga salarin ay
kasalukuyang nakakulong sa Pasig City Jail.”
A copy of the said newspaper where the above notice appeared on
page 9 thereof is attached to the complaint-affidavit.
Complainant’s further stressed that the printing and publication of
the above article falls squarely under the definition of Libel in Article 353
of the Revised Penal Code. Respondents were motivated by latter hatred
when they were tagged as swindlers in said article. In fact, respondents,
calling them swindlers, have held them in contempt, ridicule and
disrepute causing them great and irreparable damage and prejudice, as
they both hold high and respectable position in their respective offices.
In their Joint Counter-Affidavit, respondents substantially
interposed that the complaint is devoid of merit since the elements of the
crime are not present. Further, in tacitly admitting that they caused the
publication of the subject article, respondents stressed that what was
contained therein is merely an information to the public of the pending
cases of Estafa against he complainants which are pending in court.
Respondents attached a copy of the Criminal Informations for Estafa
against both complainants.
Finally, respondents argued that malice is not present as the
intention for the subject article was for victims to be informed of
complainant’s arrest since it took such a long time for the complainants
to be arrested as they went into hiding.
Complainants submitted a Reply-Affidavit which is a mere
reiteration of their complaint including existing jurisprudence on libel,
thus, the case was submitted for resolution.
After a judicious evaluation of the evidence on record, the
undersigned prosecutor finds that there is no sufficient evidence to indict
respondents for the crime of libel. Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal
Code, a libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, a vice or
defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a
natural or judicial person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
A careful perusal of the alleged libelous article shows that it merely
informs the public in general and the other offended parties, in
particular, regarding the arrest of herein complainants by police
authorities in connection with criminal cases pending in Court. Thus,
malice which is an essential element of libel, cannot be imputed upon
herein respondents since the subject article contains factual information.
Respondents have justifiable motive and did not act with reckless
disregard in causing the publication of the subject article.
Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint is recommended.
Manila, September 16, 2003
REYNALDO E. LIWANAG
Assistant City Prosecutor
