The petition that Supreme Court acted on to stop trial of 16 counts of libel
The petition that Supreme Court acted on to stop trial of 16 counts of libel
To enrich the minds of those who are minded to learn, I am publishing here the petition that I filed with the Supreme Court seeking to stop the trial of 16 counts of libel filed by Inquirer's Neal H. Cruz against tabloid journalists Jerry S. Yap, Percy Lapid, Joey Venancio, Erny Baluyot and Gloria Galuno.
It is very rare for the Supreme Court to stop a trial and this is one such rare cases.
You can read the petition below:
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Padre Faura St., Manila
JERRY S. YAP, PERCY LAPID,
GLORIA GALUNO, JOEY G. VENANCIO
and ERNY BALUYOT,
Petitioners,
-
versus - G.R. No.204015
(CA-G.R.
SP No. 123866)
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON
CITY (Branch 220) and NEAL CRUZ,
Respondents,
x-----------------------------------------------------x
Petition for Review on Certiorari
with
Application for Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO)
and
Preliminary Injunction (PI)
The petitioners, by the undersigned,
respectfully petition for review on certiorari.
The Timeliness
On October 30, 2012 the undersigned
law firm received a copy of the Resolution of the Thirteenth Division of the
Court of Appeals promulgated October 23, 2012 denying the motion for
reconsideration filed by the petitioners against its Decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
123866. A copy of this Resolution
promulgated October 23, 2012 is attached hereto as ANNEX “A.”
On July 27, 2012, the law firm
received a copy of the Decision promulgated July 23, 2012. A copy of the decision is attached hereto as ANNEX “B.”
On August 13, 2012, Monday, the
petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration. It was timely filed because it was filed on
the first office day after the last day falls on a holiday. A copy of the
motion is attached hereto as ANNEX “C.”
In this case, the last and fifteenth
(15th) day falls on November 14, 2012. Thus, the filing of this petition today,
Monday, November 12, 2012, is timely.
The Statement of the
Case
This case dwells only on a question
of law of whether it is correct for the Court of Appeals to set aside Stare Decisis Et Quieta Non Movere and reject
the long-standing doctrine established by Agbayani vs Sayo, G.R. No. L-47880,
April 30, 1979.
In setting aside Agbayani
vs Sayo, the Court of Appeals, in the process, incorrectly ruled there
was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 220.
Actually,
Agbayani
vs Sayo doctrine is not only a matter of Stare Decisis Et Quieta Non Movere.
It is more as a matter of law that must be obeyed without exception
because it is an interpretation of the law and not a mere application of the
same law on a set of facts and because it forms part now of the law of the land
by application of Article 8 of the Civil Code.
Agbayani vs. Sayo interpreted
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC for brevity) in relation to the
Constitutional requirement that the accused must be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. It
sets down the law or rule on how valid criminal information for libel should
be written, regardless of the circumstances.
As
such, it is clear that Agbayani vs. Sayo is one case law
that is not only an ordinary one for an application of Stare Decisis Et Quieta Non Movere.
It is a case law that interprets a law to apply to all kinds of libel
information. As such, it must be applied
strictly on the instant cases of libel.
Thus, the petitioners insist that Agbayani
vs. Sayo must be followed to the letter. But the trial court and the Court of Appeals
refused to do so – all without justification that may be plausible.
Hence, this case reached the Supreme
Court.
The Parties
The petitioners here are all newsmen
and they are: (a) Gloria Galuno,
Percy Lapid and Jerry S. Yap, whose address is Room 103, Ground Floor National
Press Club Bldg., No. 1 Magallanes Drive, Intramuros, Manila where they can be
served with notices or any other processes of this petition; and (b) Joey G. Venancio and Erny Baluyot,
whose address is JGV Publishing Inc., Delgado St. corner 19th St.,
Port Area, Manila.
For the purpose of this petition, it
is requested of the Honorable Court and the other parties that all notices,
pleadings, motions, manifestations or any processes intended for the
petitioners be addressed to this law firm on its address written below.
The private respondent is Neal Cruz, who may be served with
pleadings and other court processes at his counsel of record, Elmar B. Galacio,
Mark Hadran P. Gamo & Julius Gregory B. Delgado, 6th Floor, CVC
LAW CENTER, 11th Avenue corner 39th St., Bonifacio
Triangle, Bonifacio Global City 1634, Taguig.
The
public respondent is the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 220, care of Presiding Judge Jose G. Paneda,
which may be served with summonses, processes and all other processes at the
Hall of Justice, City Hall Complex, Elliptical Circle, Quezon City.
Reasons for
Allowance
As stated above, the instant
petition is anchored on a question of law questioning whether it is correct for
the Court of Appeals to set aside doctrinal case Agbayani vs. Sayo in
order to arrive at a conclusion that there was no grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 220, in rejecting
and not applying the same doctrine.
The acts done was clearly in wanton
disregard of the case law laying down the rules on how to allege material facts
in criminal information sheets for libel to vest jurisdiction to the court. The act done was also a blatant disregard of the
law on libel jurisdiction set forth in Article 360 of the RPC.
Also,
the petitioners have already exhausted the remedies available. They filed a
motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals but the same was rejected
unceremoniously.
Further, the fees for the petition
and other fees have been paid, the original copies of the documents required
are submitted, and the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping has
been executed.
Hence, the petitioners submit that
this petition should be given due course.
The Antecedents
1.
On April 26, 2011
the petitioners filed Omnibus Motion to Quash before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch
220, in Crim.
Case No. Q-09-161259-74 moving all libel information
filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor against all the petitioners be
quashed because these failed to allege facts required to vest jurisdiction on
the same trial court.
2.
These sheets of
criminal information failed to allege that the crimes of libel were committed
in Quezon City AT THE TIME OF THE SUPPOSED COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
3.
The petitioners
contended that under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC, for brevity),
the court that has jurisdiction over libel is one situated in the province or
city where the crime is deemed committed.
4.
The petitioners
cited Article 360 that states that any libel must be tried in the RTC of the
province or city:
i.
In the province or
city where the “public official” offended party held office at the time of the
commission of the crime (at the time of the publication of the questioned
item);
ii.
In the province or
city where the “private person” offended party resided at the time of the
commission of the crime (at the time of the publication of the questioned
item); or
iii.
In the province or
city where the libelous item was printed AND first published.
5.
The petitioners
also cited the case law of Agbayani vs
Sayo, G.R. No. G.R. No. L-47880 April 30, 1979.
6.
In the same Agbayani case law, it requires that all
criminal information sheet for libel must allege as follows:
i.
The offended party
is a “private person” or a “public official” at the time of the commission of
the crime of libel;
ii.
That if the
offended party is a private person the information state his residence at the
time of the commission of the crime of libel;
iii.
That if the
offended party is a public official the information state the place of his
office; and
iv.
The place of
printing and first publication shall also be stated as a necessity if the basis
of jurisdiction is the place of publication.
7.
Despite these
commands of the law and the case law, the RTC of Quezon City rejected the law
and the case law by denying the Omnibus Motion to Quash.
8.
Despite the clarity
of the law and the directive in the Agbayani
law, the RTC stood pat on its decision denying the motion to quash.
9.
Other than its acts
of not recognizing the Agbayani case
law, the RTC of Quezon City also ruled that laches as enunciated in the Tijam vs Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450,
April 15, 1968, also applied to seize the rights of the petitioners.
10.
That is despite the
fact that petitioners argued that the Sibonghanoy
case law does not apply because the said case was not on all fours to the case
at bar and that the doctrine of laches established there was established only
because the decision was already final and executory in that case being
challenged for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court that decided the
same.
11.
Then the
petitioners seasonably filed their Petition for Certiorari before the Court of
Appeals.
12.
The private
respondent commented thereon, the petitioners replied and the decision was
issued.
13.
In the decision,
the Court of Appeals the petitioners pointed out the patent error of the
appellate court in not applying the case law of Agbayani vs. Sayo.
14.
Particularly, the
Court of Appeals failed to consider that Agbayani requires the writing in the
information of a specific statement of whether the offended party was a private
person or a public employee at the time of the commission of the crime and in
this case there is no statement of whether the offended party was a private
person or a public officer at the time of the alleged commission of the crime.
15.
The Court of
Appeals never relinquished its erroneous decision.
16.
Thus, this petition
for review on certiorari is being filed.
The Issue
The petitioners hereby submit only
one issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in rejecting or not
applying the case law of Agbayani vs. Sayo, to the effect
that the criminal information sheets subject of the petition are valid despite
the lack of the statement in all the informations for libel that states for the
same public respondent to acquire jurisdiction.
The Discussions
Both
the law, Article 360 of RPC, and the case law of Agbayani vs. Sayo command
that the criminal information sheets for libel must state the facts conferring
jurisdiction on the court.
This
case law interpreting the application of Article 360 of the RPC has not yet
been overturned. It remains the law of the land. As such, the case law cannot be defied. It must be followed as to what it says to the
letter.
For
not following Agbayani vs. Sayo case law and for not ruling that the RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the Agbayani case, the Court
of Appeals clearly erred. Worse, the
Court of Appeals did not offer any justification why Agbayani vs. Sayo should
be set aside.
Agbayani
vs. Sayo requires these material
facts to be stated in all criminal information for libel, which facts are as
follows:
i.
The offended party
is a “private person” or a “public official” at the time of the commission of
the crime of libel;
ii.
If the offended
party is a private person the information state his residence at the time of
the commission of the crime of libel;
iii.
If the offended party
is a public official the information state the place of his office; and
iv.
The place of
printing and first publication shall also be stated as a necessity if the basis
of jurisdiction is the place of publication.
To be clear, let the pertinent
portion of Agbayani be quoted as follows:
In order to obviate controversies as to the venue
of the criminal action for written defamation, the complaint or information should contain allegations
as to whether, at the time the
offense was committed, the offended
party was a public officer or a private individual and where he was actually residing at that
time. Whenever possible, the place where the written defamation was
printed and first published should likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine
qua non if the circumstance as to where the libel was printed and first
published is used as the basis of the venue of the action.
As a follow-up, let Article 360 of
the RPC be quoted as follows:
Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any
person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of
any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the
same.
The author or editor of a book or
pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or
serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein
to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for
damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall
be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the
province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or
where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended
parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time
of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city or province where the
libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public
officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed
in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at
the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is
printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a
private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of
the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of
the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published:
Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where
the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the
court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed,
shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, provided,
finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations,
the civil and/or criminal actions which have been filed in court at the time of
the effectivity of this law.
Preliminary investigation of
criminal action for written defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be
conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the
municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such action may be
instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article.
No criminal action for defamation
which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de
oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly
filed by the offended party. (As amended by R.A. 1289, approved June 15, 1955,
R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965).
Despite the clarity of the commands
of the law and the case law that all the facts needed to confer jurisdiction
must be stated in the criminal information sheet for libel, the RTC refused to
quash the criminal information sheets for libel that are the subject matters of
this petition and the Court of Appeals upheld the RTC of Quezon City.
The instant information sheets for
libel are without issue to be not stating any of those material facts required
by the Agbayani case to be so stated.
All the criminal information sheets
for libel in all these cases are almost identical except for the names of the
accused as well as the name of the newspaper and the dates of issue thereof, to
wit:
The
undersigned accuses (NAMES OF THE ACCUSED), of the crime of LIBEL committed as
follows:
That
on or about the (DATE OF THE ISSUE OF THE NEWSPAPER CONCERNED), in Quezon City,
Philippines, the above-named accused, (NAMES OF THE ACCUSED, DESIGNATIONS OF
THE ACCUSED and THE NAME OF THE NEWSPAPER), a daily newspaper circulating in
Metro Manila, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one
another, with evidence intent of exposing NEAL CRUZ, who is actually residing
at No. 26 Layang-Layang St., Miranilla Homes, Tandang Sora, in the said City,
to public hatred, dishonor, discredit, contempt and ridicule, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and maliciously write, publish,
exhibit, circulate and/or cause to be written, published, exhibited and
circulated in the aforesaid newspaper, in its issue of (DATE OF ISSUE OF THE
NEWSPAPER), an article entitled (TITLE OF THE STORY), pertinent portions of
which, read as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
To recapitulate, the information
sheets:
1.
do not state the
status of the offended party as to whether he is a private person or not at the
time of the commission of libels; and
2.
do not state the
province or city where the article was first published and printed at the time
of the commission of libels.
Additionally,
it is very basic also that that jurisdiction is the requirement for the concerned
criminal court to have authority to try the case and for that jurisdiction to
be conferred the corresponding information sheet must state those facts that
should confer jurisdiction.
Now,
as excuse, the RTC claimed that the petitioners were already barred by laches
just because the petitioners already submitted themselves to the arraignment
and pre-trial conference.
The
RTC used the case law Tijam vs
Sibonghanoy to justify its conclusion that the petitioners were already
barred by laches.
This
is a clear act of bias in favor of private respondent Neal Cruz.
The
public respondent very well knew that Tijam
cannot apply because it is not on all fours with the cases at bar.
The
RTC very well knew that Tijam
concerns a civil case while the instant cases are criminal where any doubt
shall be resolved in favor of the accused and against the state.
The
RTC very well knew that Tijam
involved a case where there was already a decision that was already final and
executory while the instant case is one where trial has not even begun.
Ergo,
it is very clear that the RTC wantonly disregarded the law and the case law on
the matter.
It
also showed clear bias in favor of the private respondent.
Despite
being silent on the issue about laches applied as a very rare exception by the Tijam
vs Sibonghanoy case law, the Court of Appeals did not rule the use by
the RTC of laches as a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.
Application
for TRO
The petitioners are applying for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction (PI)
to stop the null-and-void proceedings from further causing prejudices on the
petitioners.
The public respondent and the
private respondent already started the presentation of the first witness who was
no other than the private complainant himself.
The accused-petitioner has also started cross-examining the private
complainant and is yet to complete the cross-examination at the time of filing
this petition.
The continuous holding of the trial
shall continually cost the petitioners expenses in travel and the appearance
fees of their counsels.
Additionally, it disturbs the
petitioners’ daily work as journalists and of newspapering.
There has been much news coverage
that has not been attended by the petitioners just because of the schedules or
settings in the sala of the public respondent.
The right of the petitioner not to
be disturbed is also clear, considering that they are practitioners in the
exercise of the freedom of expression and of the press that they cannot be
abridged by any law and considering further that the proceedings being held by
the public respondent are clearly NULL and VOID.
The damage being done to press
freedom cannot be repaired. There is
also no issue that the continued trial continuously insults press freedom that
is otherwise being placed in a lofty and sacred place by the Constitution.
Of course, any person has the right
to be protected from any official acts that are null and void, including the
act of conducting trial when there is a clear issue of nullity in the criminal
information sheet from which the proceedings got the authority to do so.
The acts that prejudice the rights
of the petitioner are actual and being done.
The damage being done is material and substantial, as well.
Ergo, the instant proceedings should
be stopped by means of a TRO and the subsequent preliminary injunction.
The
Prayer
WHEREFORE,
it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that this Petition for Review
on Certiorari be given due course and be granted after due notice and hearing.
But
before the petition is to be heard, it is also prayed that a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary Injunction be issued to protect the
clear rights of the petitioner from further damage and irreparable injury.
Other
reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.
November 12, 2012. Manila.
RENTA PE CAUSING SABARRE CASTRO & ASSOCIATES
Mailing Address:
Unit 1, No. 2368 Leon Guinto St. corner JB Roxas St., Malate,
Manila
Emails: totocausing@yahoo.com,
berteni.causing@gmail.com; Tel:
3105521
By:
CIRILO P. SABARRE JR.
IBP No. 856677/ 01-03-2012
PTR No. 11731429 / 01-03-2012
Roll No. 53639 / MCLE No. IV-0003755
/ 12-07-2011
DERVIN V. CASTRO
IBP No. 836900/
11-18-2010 up to 2012
PTR No. 0335125 /
01-03-2012
Roll No. 53624 /
MCLE No. IV-0007336 issued August 10, 2012
BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING
IBP No. 894664 / 03-20-2012 / Manila
PTR No. 0675267 / 03-27-2012 / Manila
Roll No. 60944 / MCLE Compliance No. IV – 0007338 issued August 10,
2012
Copy furnished:
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT of QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 220
Care of Judge Jose
G. Paneda
Hall of Justice, Quezon City Hall, Elliptical Circle,
Quezon City
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Hall of Justice,
Quezon City Hall, Elliptical Circle, Quezon City
Counsels for Private
Respondent Neal Cruz
ELMAR B. GALACIO, MARK HADRAN P. GAMO & JULIUS
GREGORY B. DELGADO
6th Floor, CVCLAW CENTER
11th Avenue corner
39th St., Bonifacio Triangle
Bonifacio Global
City 1634, Taguig, Metro Manila
Explanation
Far
distance and lack of manpower compelled the firm to furnish the parties copies
of this PETITION FOR REVIEW CERTIORARI by registered mails with return card.
CIRILO P. SABARRE JR. / DERVIN V. CASTRO / BERTENI C. CAUSING
Comments