FACTS:

Spouses Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo Gutierrez filed two criminal informations for libel against Cristinelli S. Fermin and Bogs C. Tugas before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 218. Fermin and Tugas were accused of knowingly printing and circulating false and libelous material in Gossip Tabloid, exposing Annabelle Rama Gutierrez to humiliation and disgrace. The RTC found Fermin and Tugas guilty of libel and sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty. Fermin appealed to the CA, which affirmed her conviction but acquitted Tugas. Dissatisfied, Fermin filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. She raised several arguments, including the requirement of knowledge and participation by the publisher in the preparation and approval of the libelous article, the disputable presumption created by Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the alleged non-libelous nature of the article, and the protection of the freedom of the press.

The petitioner argued that she should be acquitted because she had no involvement in the preparation and publication of the article nor in the review, editing, examination, and approval of articles published in Gossip Tabloid. She claimed to have adduced ample evidence to support her claim of innocence. The petitioner cited several jurisprudential cases, such as U.S. v. Madrigal, U.S. v. Abad Santos, and U.S. v. Taylor, to support her arguments. She also referred to People v. Topacio and Santiago, U.S. v. Ocampo, and State vs. Mason, which discussed the criminal culpability of those enumerated in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioner mentioned Commonwealth vs. Morgan and Rex vs. Walter, which established principles regarding the criminal prosecution of a newspaper publisher and the presumption of publication in libel cases.

The petitioner admitted to being the "publisher," "president," and "chairperson" of Gossip Tabloid and acknowledged having full control over the publication. The libelous article in question was supposedly prepared by employees under the petitioner's control and supervision. The petitioner argued that People v. Beltran and Soliven, which acquitted the publisher of The Philippine Star due to the lack of evidence of knowledge and approval of a libelous article, should be followed as judicial precedent. However, the court held that the Beltran decision could not bind them as it only attained finality at the Court of Appeals level. The court also noted the ruling of U.S. v. Ocampo, affirming the criminal liability of publishers, and stated that modifying it would amount to judicial legislation. The court found that the co-accused, Tugas, could not deny participation in the publication of the article as evident from his joint counter-affidavit and testimony.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the ruling in US v. Ocampo regarding the criminal liability of a publisher under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code should still be upheld.

2. Whether Tugas can be acquitted based on his lack of participation in the publication of the libelous article.

3. • Whether or not the article published by Gossip Tabloid constitutes libel.

4. Whether or not the article in question is libelous and malicious.

5. Whether or not the petitioner had malice in making the defamatory imputations against the complainants.

6. Whether or not the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press applies in this case.

7. Whether the conviction of the petitioner for libel should be upheld.

8. Whether the penalty to be imposed for the libel conviction should be imprisonment or a fine.

RULING:

1. The court held that the ruling in US v. Ocampo, which held that a publisher can be held criminally liable for the publication of a libelous article even without specific knowledge, participation, and approval, should still be upheld. The court emphasized that Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code is clear and unambiguous, and modifying it would amount to judicial legislation.

2. The court ruled that Tugas cannot be acquitted as he actively participated in the preparation and publication of the controversial article and approved it. Tugas's alibi of being confined in a clinic was deemed unavailing as his attending physician testified that his medical condition did not prevent him from performing his work.

3. • Yes, the article published by Gossip Tabloid constitutes libel.

4. The article is deemed libelous and malicious as it imputed the crime of malversation, vices or defects, and being a wastrel against the complainants, which tend to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt.

5. The petitioner had malice in making the defamatory imputations against the complainants as she had a motive to speak ill against them during an electoral campaign.

6. While freedom of speech and of the press is guaranteed, criticism against public officials and figures on matters of public interest does not automatically fall within the constitutionally protected speech if the utterances are false, malicious, or unrelated to the public officer's duties or irrelevant to matters of public interest involving public figures.

7. The conviction of the petitioner for libel is upheld.

8. The penalty imposed for the libel conviction is modified to a fine in the amount of P6,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The award of moral damages is increased to P500,000.00.

PRINCIPLES:

• The ruling in US v. Ocampo regarding the criminal liability of a publisher under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code should still be upheld.

• Article 360 is clear and unambiguous and should not be read to include additional requirements.

• To be criminally liable, a publisher does not need to have specific knowledge, participation, and approval of the libelous article.

• Alibi as a defense must be supported by credible evidence and cannot be used to escape liability.

• A libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary; or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

• In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.

• Freedom of speech and of the press is not absolute and must not be exercised in a manner that disregards the rights and reputation of others.

• Media practitioners have high ethical standards to uphold and must not indiscriminately air fabricated and malicious comments about the personal lives of public figures.

• Genuine freedom in the marketplace of social thought and action is one that is balanced by the freedom of others.

• The right to freedom of speech should be exercised responsibly to avoid the self-destruction of the right and regression of human society into chaos.

• Freedom of expression is a constitutionally protected and guaranteed right.

• The press is the servant, not the master, of the citizenry.

• Freedom of the press does not carry with it an unrestricted hunting license to prey on ordinary citizens.

• The preference in the imposition of penalties in libel cases is a fine rather than imprisonment.

• The imposition of imprisonment as penalty for libel is allowed when the imposition of a fine alone would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice.

• Utterances against public figures such as private complainants have a relatively wide latitude but must still be within the bounds of fair comment.

• The award of moral damages may be granted in libel cases based on the serious anxiety and wounded feelings suffered by the complainants.