FACTS:

Dolores Magno and Cerelito T. Alejandro have been neighbors for around twenty years. Dolores closed the passage way in 1991 in retaliation to certain allegations made by Cerelito against the Magnos. Cerelito saw Dolores write words on her garage wall that he believed were referring to him. He reported the matter to the police and filed a complaint. Rodelito, Cerelito's son, also saw Dolores write on her garage wall and believed that it was referring to him as well. Cerelito filed a complaint with the police and pictures were taken. The Office of the City Prosecutor filed libel charges against Dolores based on the complaints. Dolores delivered a letter-answer to the police and handed an unsealed envelope to Cerelito's sister, containing offensive statements. Four separate libel cases were filed against Dolores in the Regional Trial Court. Dolores was acquitted in two cases but found guilty of libel in the other two cases.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecution's principal witness, Rodelito Alejandro, is credible.

2. Whether the prosecution established the elements of authorship and publication of the malicious writings.

3. Whether there was publication of the defamatory matter as required in the prosecution for libel.

4. Whether the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses affect their credibility.

5. Whether or not there is publication with respect to Cerelito's wife, Fe.

RULING:

1. The appeal is without merit.

2. There was publication of the defamatory matter. Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended party constitutes publication. In this case, the unsealed envelope containing the libelous letter was handed by the accused to a third person, who had the opportunity to read the letter before delivering it to the offended party.

3. The minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses do not affect their credibility. Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies in the declarations or testimonies of witnesses do not detract from their credibility. What is important is that their testimonies agree on essential facts and substantially corroborate a consistent and coherent whole.

4. There is publication with respect to Cerelito's wife, Fe, considering that the invectives contained in the libelous letter were directed against Cerelito but the letter was addressed to "Mr. Cerelito & Fe Alejandro."

PRINCIPLES:

• The assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the competence of the trial court.

• Findings of fact of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses command great weight and respect.

• Minor variances or inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not necessarily invalidate their credibility.

• The positive identification of the accused as the author of libelous writings can outweigh minor inconsistencies in testimonies.

• In order to be liable for libel, the following elements must be shown: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.

• Publication, in the law of libel, means the making of the defamatory matter, after it has been written, known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written.

• Inconsistencies and contradictions in testimonies which are minor, trivial, and inconsequential cannot impair, and on the contrary, serve to strengthen the credibility of the witness.

• Writing to a person other than the person defamed is sufficient to constitute publication.

• The person to whom the letter is addressed is a third person in relation to its writer and the person defamed therein.

• Positive identification of the authorship of a letter may be established through reference to the contents of the letter.

• The contents of a letter can be considered reiterations of the author's previous writings to establish authorship.

• The determination of the elements of libel requires sufficient evidence to establish the authorship of the defamatory letter.