(5th Meeting)

Libel
Forms of Libel
a). The facilities of the mass media i.e print and broadcast media
such as articles, news items, columns, caricatures, editorials in
newspapers and magazines; comments, opinions, news aired
over the television or radio stations
b). Modern communication facilities such as through the internet
or cellphones, CDs, DVDs
c). Literary outlets such as through letters, books, poems, songs,
stage plays, movies, paintings, drawings, pictures, sculpture and
the like
Elements
A. First Element: There must be a defamatory imputation
1. This means that the matter claimed to be libelous must impute
a crime, vice, defect, or any act, or omission, condition, status or
circumstance, tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt to a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.
The purpose is to lower the esteem or honor, or respect, in which
a person is regarded, such as:
a). The victim is humiliated or publicly embarrassed
b). The victim is vilified, hated, becomes the subject of gossip,
nasty stories, suspected of wrongdoings, is avoided

c). The victim losses face, becomes a laughing stock, is the

object of ridicule
2. Rules to determine whether the language is defamatory or not:
a). What should be considered is what the matter conveyed to a
fair and reasonable man and not the intention of the author or the
accused.
b). Statements should not be interpreted by taking the words one
by one out of context; they must be taken in their entirety.
c). Words are to be given the ordinary meaning as are commonly
understood and accepted in the in daily life. The technical
meanings do not apply. This is especially true to idiomatic
sayings. Thus Babae ng Bayan does not mean a heroine.
Hayok sa Laman does not mean a meat eater. Adu client nya
nga pagbigasan
3. How the imputation is made:
a). By the use of direct and express defamatory words,
descriptions or accusations. Examples: (i). He is a thief, swindler,
babaero, ugly, wife beater, a crook (ii) drawing a caricature of a
person depicting him as a crocodile
b). By the use of Figures of Speech such as:
(i) Hyperbole - exaggeration according to which a person is
depicted as being better or worse, or larger or smaller than is
actually the case. Example: (a). Mr. X is the gambling lord (b)
She is the mother of all cheaters. (c) Praise undeserved is
slander in disguise
(ii) Irony or sarcasm or where words are used to convey a
meaning contrary to their literal sense. Examples: (a). Maria

belongs to the ladies called Kalapating mababa ang lipad (b).

Dont bother asking him for a treat. He is boxer ( i.e stingy or a
miser) (c) He has a face only a mother can love (d) She is my
wife when she is beside me, yours when she is near you. (e).
She is very famous because she is a public sweetheart.
(iii) Metaphor or the use of words or phrases denoting one kind
of idea in place of another word or phrase for the purpose of
suggesting a likeness between the two. Examples: (a) He is
Satan personified on earth. (b) She has an angelic face but
covered with a skin as thick as the hide of a carabao
c) Or words or phrases with double meanings such as those
which apparently are innocent but are deliberately chosen
because in reality they convey a different and a derogatory
meaning. Example: He will make a good husband. He is a
mamas boy.
(i) Where the alleged libelous matter is susceptible of two or
more interpretations, one libelous and the other not libelous,
the courts are justified in holding that the real purpose of the
writer was to have the public understand what he wrote in
the light of the worst possible meaning
4. What are not defamatory
a). Words commonly used as expletives, denoting anger or
disgust rather than as defamation, such as the expressions
Putang inaka, tarandado ka, Ulol, Punyeta ka.
b). Expressions of an opinion made by one who is entitled to
state an opinion on a subject in which he is interested.
Examples:

(i) An heir writes that there was unfairness in the distribution of

the properties
(ii) A lady complains over the radio that there was discrimination
against Cordillera girls women in the selection of candidates to
the Miss Baguio Pageant
(iii). A law student writes in the school news organ that he
believes the faculty in the college of law are generally lazy and
are not kept abreast with new jurisprudence
(iv). A teacher declared in an interview that the students of one
school are less intelligent than those in another school
c). Words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or
slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however
opprobious, ill-natured, or vexatious whether written or spoken,
do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the
absence of allegation for special damages. The fact that the
language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable
by itself ( MVRS Pub. Inc. vs Islamic Dawah Council of the Phil.
444 Phil. 20; Binay vs. Sec. of Justice Sept. 8, 2006)
B. Second Element: Publicity of the Libelous Matter
1. This means the accused caused the libelous material to be
known or read or seen or heard by a third person, other than the
person to whom it has been written i.e. the victim. Somebody
must have read, seen or heard the libelous material due to the
acts of the accused.
(A). The addressing of defamatory words directly to the person
concerned, and to no other person, does not constitute an
actionable libel.

(B). If it was the victim himself and not the accused, who showed,
informed or relayed the libelous material to others, then the
accused is not liable.
(C). Circulation or publicity is not necessarily through the
newspaper.
(D). Examples:
i). Posting the material in the internet or posting in a bulletin
board
ii). Showing the caricature, or naked picture, of the victim to
another
iii) Announcements in the radio, or paid advertisements such as
The public is warned not to purchase the skin lotion products of
ABC Corp. to prevent possible cancer
iv). Asking someone to write a defamatory letter about the victim
v). Sending the letter to the victim through a messenger but it is
in an unsealed envelope ( the presumption is that the letter is
intended to be read by anyone other than the victim). Thus if the
letter is sent in a sealed envelope, the element of publicity is
missing.
2. Effect: Each separate publication of a libelous matter is a
separate crime, whether published in part, or in the same
newspaper.
Example: (i) There as many crimes of libel as there are various
showing or staging of a libelous drama or stage play in different
venues and at various times.
(ii) If the same libelous news is published in two or more
newspapers, then there be such number of separate libels
corresponding to the different newspapers which published the
material.

C. Third Element: The Person libeled must be identified.

(Identity of victim)
1. This means the complainant or plaintiff must prove he is the
person subject of the libelous matter, that it his reputation which
was targeted.
2. This element is established by the testimony of witnesses if the
complainant was not directly mentioned by name. They must be
the public or third persons who can identify the complainant as
the person subject of the libel. If third persons can not say it is
the plaintiff or complainant who is the subject, then it cannot be
said that plaintiffs name has been tarnished.
a). Where the publication is ambiguous as to the person to whom
it applies, the testimony of persons who read the publication is
admissible for the purpose of showing who is intended to be
designated by the words in said publication
3. How the identification or referral to the plaintiff is made
a). Directly by his name
b). By descriptions of his person, his address, nature of his office
or work, his actions, or any other data personally connected or
related to the plaintiff; or identification from similar other the
circumstances
c) From the likeness of his face or features to the libelous
drawing, caricature, painting or sculpture
4. The victims maybe natural persons who are alive or juridical
persons, or deceased persons as to their memory.

5. Rule if several persons were defamed or libeled

a). If several persons were libeled in one article, but all are
identifiable, then there are as many charges of liable as there are
persons libeled
b). If the article is directed to a class or group of several persons
in general terms only without specifying any particular member,
there is no victim identified or identifiable, hence there is no
actionable libel. No person can claim to have been specifically
libeled as to give that person the right to file charges of libel.
Examples:
(i). Some lady students in the 4th year law class section A, are
ugly
(ii). Two thirds of the law students are cheaters
(iii). Majority of the policemen are crooks
(iv). Most lawyers are thieves disguised in coat and tie
c). If the defamation is directed against a group or class and the
statement is so sweeping or all-embracing as to apply to every
member of that group or class, then any member can file an
action for libel in his own name, not in the name of the
group/class. (Note: Philippine laws do not recognize group libel).
Or if the statement is sufficiently specific so that each individual
can prove that the statement specifically point to him then he
may bring an action in his own name.
Examples:
(i). All those belonging to 4th year law class section A are sex
perverts
(ii) Each and every employee in the accounting office is secretly
taking home part of the tuition fees paid.

(iii) If you are a faculty member of the college of law of U.B. then
you have no integrity but you are a yes-man of the school
President
d). But even if directed against a group or class but the statement
is directly and personally addressed to a member or members
thereof, then only such member(s) can bring an action.
Example: A radio announcer addresses himself to Mr. X and Mr.
Y and says: Mr. X, and you Mr. Y. You Pangalatoks are sex
maniacs. Only Mr. X and Mr. Y can file an action for libel.
D. Fourth Element: That there be malice on the part of the
accused.
1. Malice is the legal term to denote that the accused is
motivated by personal ill-will, spite, hatred, jealousy, anger, and
speaks not in response to duty but to do ulterior and unjustifiable
harm. The purpose is really to destroy, to injure, to inflict harm.
2. There are two kinds of malice
a). Malice in Law or Presumed Malice.
(i) The plaintiff need not prove the existence of malice. It is for
the accused to disprove this presumption
(ii) This presumption, that accused was actuated with an evil
purpose or malice, arises if the article is defamatory on its face,
or due to the grossness of the defamatory imputation even if the
facts are true, but there was no good intention or justifiable
motive.
(iii) Examples:
(a). X writes an article about the sexual escapades of a society
matron complete with the details of time, place, and supported by

pictures. In such case the law presumes that X was actuated by

malice even if what he wrote is true.
(b). X calls the radio and announces that the family of Juan de la
Cruz is a family of thieves and crooks.
b). Malice in Fact or Malice as a Fact. -. It is the malice which
must be proven by the plaintiff. He must prove the purpose of the
accused is to malign or harm or injure his reputation. This arises
either because:
(i) the article is not defamatory on its face or if libelous it is
ambiguous
(ii) the accused was able to overcome the presumption of malice.
Prosecution for Libel
A. Remedies of the Victim: (i) the person libeled may file a
criminal case or a separate civil case for damages (ii) but he may
opt to recover damages in the same criminal case
B. Jurisdiction and Venue of the criminal action
1. a). Actions based on libel, whether civil or criminal, are within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court even if the
penalty is within the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts.
b).The civil case must also be tried in the RTC trying the criminal
case (No separate civil action)
c) If the libel imputes any of the private crimes, the Prosecution
must be upon a complaint filed by the offended party
2. Venue: as a general rule the action for libel shall be in the RTC
of the province/city where the article was first printed and

published ( Rule of Place of First Print and Publication) but it may

also be filed elsewhere as follows:
a). If a private person: in the RTC of the province/city where he
resides
b). If a public official and holding office in Manila: In the RTC of
Manila
c) If a public official holding office outside Manila: in the RTC of
the province/city where he holds office
C. Persons Liable for Libel
1. In case of written libel:
a). The Authors of the written defamatory article, the artists,
sculptor, or painter
b). Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication
or exhibition thereof ( i.e. those persons other than the author,
who make known the libelous matter to a third person)
c). the editor or business manager of the print media where the
article was published
2. In case of non-written libel
a). the speaker, announcer or utterer of the defamatory
statements aired over the broadcast media; the host of the show
where the libelous statement is made
b). the producers and makers of the libelous cinematographic
film, stage show, play or drama
3. Other persons under the principle of Libel by Republication
i.e. a person is liable, though he is not the author of has nothing

to do with the libelous matter, if he knowingly republishes or

circulates the said libelous matter.
Defenses Allowed in Libel
1. Concept:
A. In general: if the accused proves the absence of any of the
elements, then he is not liable. Thus he may show: the material is
not defamatory; there is no publicity; it is impersonal and does
not refer to the plaintiff; or that there is no malice.
B. There are however specific defenses which may refer to any
of the elements of libel or are independent defenses in
themselves. These defenses were established by jurisprudence,
particularly by United States Decisions, as our Libel law is based
primarily on American concepts.
II. The Doctrine of Privilege Communication
A. This is a defense against the element of malice and it applies
to both libel and oral defamation. This means that even if the
material is considered libelous still there is no malice in the eyes
of the law. These consist of two kinds: (a) Absolutely Privilege
Communication and the (b) Qualifiedly Privileged
Communication.
B. Absolutely Privileged Communication: this refers to a
communication, whether oral or written which is defamatory and
may even be made in bad faith but which cannot give rise to
either criminal or civil liability. This is because there are higher
considerations involved which are considered more paramount
than the damage to the reputation of a person.

1. Privilege Speeches in the halls of Congress

2. Communications made by public officers in the performance of
their duties, such as the explanations on a matter made by a
public officer to his superior though it contains harsh language
3. Statements made in judicial proceedings if pertinent and
relevant to the case involved, such as the allegations in the
pleadings
4. Statements and evidence submitted in a Preliminary
Investigation.
C. Qualifiedly/Conditionally Privileged Communication: this refers
to communications in which the law presumes the absence of
malice, thus they are initially not actionable. The burden therefore
is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of actual malice.
D. Two Kinds of Qualifiedly Privileged Communications Under
Article 354.
1. Private Communications, made by one to another in the
performance of a legal, moral or social duty provided that: (i). The
one making the communication must have an interest in the
subject and (ii) the person to whom the communication was
made is one who can act on the matter
(a). This communication maybe oral or written, private, public or
official document which are sent for redress of grievances or to
request for appropriate action. But it must be private in that it is
intended to be only between the sender and the recipient. Undue
publicity removes the privilege.
Hence a so called Open Letter is not privileged. Also,
accusations made in a public gathering are not privileged.

(b). The communication must meet these elements:

(i). The person who made the communication had a legal, moral
or social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an
interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the
one to whom it is made
(ii). The communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or
superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has
the power to furnish the protection sought ( or that the recipient is
a proper person who can act on the communication) and
(iii). The statements in the communication are made in good faith
and without malice ( Binay vs. Sec. of Justice, Sept. 08, 2006)
Legal duty: presupposes a provision of law imposing upon the
accused the duty to communicate. Such as the complaint by a
citizen concerning the misconduct of a public official to the latters
superior even if, upon investigation, the matters are not
substantiated. But it may be shown that the charges were
maliciously made without reasonable ground for believing them
to be true.
Also, a report to the police by a citizen about the suspected
criminal activities of another person, even if latter it is proved the
suspicions were groundless, is privileged.
(d). Moral or social duty presupposes the existence of a
relationship between the sender and the recipient of the
communication, or the confidential and pressing urgency of the
communication.
(e). The sender must have an interest in the subject of the
communication and the recipient must be a proper person who
can act on the subject to the communication.

Thus a letter-complaint describing an SLU law professor as lazy

incompetent, and an absentee, is privileged if sent to the SLU
President. It is not privileged if sent to the President of U.B.
If a teacher writes to his fellow teacher that a student of his is
becoming irresponsible and possibly a drug user, the same letter
is not privileged. But if sent to the parents of the student for their
information and action, it is conditionally privileged.
(f). In Alcantara vs. Ponce ( Feb. 28, 2007) the court adopted the
ruling in the U.S case of Borg vs. Borg in that a written charge or
information filed with the prosecutor or the court is not libelous
although proved or be false and unfounded. Furthermore, the
information given to a prosecutor by a private person for the
purpose of initiating a prosecution is protected by the same cloak
of immunity and cannot be used as a basis for an action for
defamation.
In this Alcantara case, a newsletter submitted by party in a
preliminary investigation, which was defamatory, was considered
as a privilege communication.
It was also ruled that under the Test of Relevancy, a matter
alleged in the course of the proceedings need not be in every
case material to the issues or be so pertinent to the controversy
that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of trial, so
long as they are relevant.
2.-A: A fair and true report of any official proceeding, or of any
statement, report, or speech, made thereat

(a). The proceeding must not be confidential, such as the

hearings before the Senate, as opposed to the close door
executive sessions of the senate . Thus if the report is with
respect to a public record, it refers only to those made accessible
to the public which may be revealed for public interest or
protection of the public.
(b) The report must be without any unnecessary comment or
libelous remarks ( i.e. no editorializing)
(c).The report must be accurate and should not intentionally
distort the facts. If there is error in the facts reported, the report is
still privilege if made in good faith
(d) Examples: News report of a judicial proceeding, including the
filing of a complaint in court; or what a witness testified; or of a
verbal and heated argument between two councilors during the
session of the city council.
(e). This defense apply most often to members of the media who
write on said matters or report them as news
2-B. Fair and True Report of the Official Acts of a Public Official
(a). The public and official acts of a public official, including his
policies, are legitimate subjects of comments and criticisms,
though they may be unfair. Public officials are not supposed to be
onion-skinned. Public officials, like Ceasars wife, must be
beyond reproach and above suspicion.
(b). But the communication may be actionable:
(i) If it contains an imputation which is a false allegation of a fact
or a comment based on a false supposition
(ii). If the attack, criticism or imputation pertains to his private
acts or private life, unless these reflect on his public character
and image as a public official.

(iii) As stated in the U.S. case of New York Times vs. Sullivan, a
public official may recover damages if he proves that : the
statement was made with actual damage, that is, with knowledge
that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false
or not
B. Matters Considered Privileged By Jurisprudence
1. Fair Comments on Matters of Public Interest
(a) In Borjal vs. Ct. of Appeals, (301 SCRA 1, Jan. 14, 1999) it
was held that the enumeration in Article 354 is not an exclusive
list of qualifiedly privileged communications because fair
comments on matters of public interest are privileged and
constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander
(b). They refer to events, developments, or matters in which the
public as a whole has a legitimate interest.
Examples
(i). A news report on the welfare of youth and students in a
school allegedly staffed by incompetents, or a dumping ground of
misfit teachers, concerns a matter of public interest.
(ii). An editorial criticizing the owner of a ship which sunk, for his
delay in extending financial help to the family of the victims, is not
libelous as the in action is a matter of public interest.
(iii). The arrest and prosecution of law violator is a matter in
which the public has a right to know. Thus there is no liability for
reporting that a lady was arrested for selling shabu or that a
person was charged in court or convicted by a court for Estafa.
The persons in question cannot file a case for libel.
(iv). A radio announcer lambasts a family for their adamant
refusal to vacate and remove their structure inside a park.

2. Comments and Criticisms on the Actuations of Public Figures

(a) Public figures refer to people who place themselves in the
public limelight or attention either: by nature of their business or
activity, or mode of living, or by adopting a mode of profession or
calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings,
his affairs and in his character or which affect public interest
(these are the celebrities), or because they participate in public
affairs or regularly and publicly expound their views on public
affairs.
Examples of the first: movie stars; national athletes; those
representing the Philippines in world beauty pageants, Manny
Pacquiao; hosts of TV shows/programs such as the Tulfo
brothers, musicians, novelists. The spouse of the President is a
public figure.
Examples of the second: candidates for an elective position;
columnists of national newspapers, TV/radio commentators,
Cardinal Sin during his time, Jose Maria Sison.
(b) As with public officials, the imputation maybe actionable if it
is (i) a false allegation of fact or
(ii) it is based on a false supposition.
3. Justified Libel or the Privilege of a Reply.
This is fighting libel with libel. This refer to communications made
in response to a libel in order to counter and/or remove the libel,
provided it is limited to and related to the defamatory imputation
and not unnecessarily libelous.

4. Truth And Good Motives or Justifiable Ends.

A. It is not enough that what was publicized about another is true.
The accused must also prove good motives or intentions and
justifiable ends, in order to disprove malice.
B. This defense is available only if: (a) What is imputed to
another is a crime regardless if the victim is a private or public
person or (ii) if the victim is a public officer regardless of whether
a crime is imputed, so long as it relates to the discharge of their
official duties
C. Illustrations: one writes about the criminal activities of another
in order to show that crime does not pay, or to set an example of
what conduct to avoid.

5. The Principle of Neutral Reportage.

A. This is a defense available to one charged not as the author
but as a republisher of a libelous material
B. The republisher who accurately and disinterestedly reports
certain defamatory statements made against public figures, is
shielded from liability, regardless of his subjective awareness of
the truth or falsity of the accusation. ( See Fil Broadcasting Net
Work vs. AGO Medical and Educational Center, 448 SCRA 413)
Example: A parent of a student goes on radio to denounce a
school teacher as being incompetent, absentee, bias and
prejudiced. A news reporter quoted the accusations in his news
article. He is not liable even if he personally knows the
accusations are untrue.
356. Libel As A Threat (Blackmailing)

I. Concept: The law punishes a person who demands a

compensation or money consideration by:
1. threatening to publish a libel concerning a person or his family
and
2. offering to prevent the publication of a libel
II. Principles:
A. This a form of blackmailing because there is an extortion for
money under threat of so called exposing a person. This is
often called demand for Hush Money
B. If both modes were committed by a single person, there is
only one offense. If committed by two different persons there be
two separate offenses, unless both are in conspiracy.
C. The crime is consumated once the threats or offers were
made.
III. Examples:
A. The accused threatened to publish in a weekly periodical
certain letters written by a married woman unless she paid a
certain sum of money.
B. The producer of a TV Program demanded money from a
politician otherwise he would expose the sexcapades of the
politician.
Policarpio vs. Manila Times, G.R. No. 16027, May 30, 1962
CONCEPCION, J.
Facts: Policarpio was executive secretary of UNESCO National
Commission. As such, she had filed charges against Herminia
Reyes, one of her subordinates in the Commission, and caused
the latter to be separated from the service.

RULING: Newspapers must enjoy a certain degrees of discretion

in determining the manner in which a given event should be
presented to the public, and the importance to be attached
thereto, as a news item, and that its presentation in a sensational
manner is not per se illegal. Newspapers may publish news items
relative to judicial, legislative or other official proceedings, which
are not of confidential nature, because the public is entitled to
know the truth with respect to such proceedings.
But, to enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory
information must be not only true, but, also, fair, and it must
be made in good faith and without any comments or
remarks.
Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, 34 SCRA 116
Keywords: Libel, defamatory speech, freedom of speech
TEST of LIABILITY: Court must prove that there was
actual malice in publishing the story / in publishing the
photo (Note: but this was not done in this case)
Doctrine: For liability in damages to arise from an alleged
libelous publication, without offending press freedom, there is
need to prove that the publication was made with actual
malice that is, with knowledge of its falsity or with
reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 - Danet
Summary: In the 1960s at the height of the bloody rioting in the
American South over racial segregation. The then City

Commissioner L. B. Sullivan of Montgomery, Alabama, sued New

York Times for publishing a paid political advertisement
espousing racial equality and describing police atrocities
committed against students inside a college campus. As
commissioner having charge over police actions Sullivan felt that
he was sufficiently identified in the ad as the perpetrator of the
outrage; consequently, he sued New York Times on the basis of
what he believed were libelous utterances against him.
The U. S. Supreme Court speaking through Mr. Justice William J.
Brennan Jr. ruled against Sullivan holding that honest criticisms
on the conduct of public officials and public figures are insulated
from libel judgments. The guarantees of freedom of speech and
press prohibit a public official or public figure from recovering
damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official
conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with
actual malice, i.e., with knowledge that it was false or with
reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
BRENNAN, J.,
Public Official Doctrine
It requires that liability for defamation of a public official or public
figure may not be imposed in the absence of proof of "actual
malice" on the part of the person making the libelous statement.
First Amendment requires that a public official must prove that he
was libeled with malicious intent in order to recover. A finding of
malicious intent requires a showing that the defendant published
the defamatory article with actual knowledge of its falsity or with
reckless disregard for its truth. The public figure doctrine is an
attempt to strike a balance between the First Amendment interest
in a press free from the self-censorship considerations arising

from the existence of libel laws and the state interest in providing
civil remedies for defamatory falsehood. The public figure
doctrine recognizes that the state interest in protecting certain
persons classed as public figures is less than in the case of
purely private individuals.
Raison detre for the doctrine: to require critics of official conduct
to guarantee the truth of all their factual assertions on pain of libel
judgments would lead to self-censorship, since would-be critics
would be deterred from voicing out their criticisms even if such
were believed to be true, or were in fact true, because of doubt
whether it could be proved or because of fear of the expense of
having to prove it.
Actual Malice
defined as a defendants publication of a statement either:
1) knowing it was false; or
2) exercising reckless disregard for the truth.

Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, Jan. 14, 1999 Danet
Doctrine of Fair Comment
means that while in general every discreditable imputation
publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed
innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false
imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the
discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his
public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such
discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it
must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a
false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion,

based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion

happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be
inferred from the facts.
Types of Privileged Communication
1. Absolutely privileged communication those which are not
actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith. An example
is found in Sec. 11, Art.VI, of the 1987 Constitution which
exempts a member of Congress from liability for any speech or
debate in the Congress or in any Committee thereof.
2. Qualifiedly privileged communications those containing
defamatory imputations are not actionable unless found to have
been made without good intention justifiable motive. To this
genre belong "private communications" and "fair and true report
without any comments or remarks."
Public Figure (Ayers v. Capulong)
x x x x a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, mode of
living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the
public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs and his
character, has become a public personage. He is, in other words,
a celebrity. Obviously, to be included in this category are those
who have achieved some degree of reputation by appearing
before the public, as in the case of an actor, a professional
baseball player, a pugilist, or any other entertainer. The list is,
however, broader than this. It includes public officers, famous
inventors and explorers, war heroes and even ordinary soldiers,
infant prodigy, and no less a personage than the Great Exalted
Ruler of the lodge. It includes, in short, anyone who has arrived
at a position where the public attention is focused upon him as a
person.

Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to

duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed,
and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm.
Malice is bad faith or bad motive. It is the essence of the crime of
libel.

Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 118971, Sept. 15,

1999 - Sarah
Time, Inc. vs. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 - Sarah

Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 - Pau

Summary: After Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt (petitioners)
published and ad depicting Jerry Falwell (respondent) in a
malicious content (having his first time in an outhouse with his
mother, the latter brought suit based on invasion of privacy, libel
and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Japan Airlines vs. Simangan, G.R. No. 170141, April 22, 2008
- Pau
Nature: petition for certiorari
Keywords : breach, common carrier, exemplary damages, moral
damages

Summary: Japan Airlines crew thought that the papers of

Simangan were fake and that he really intended to use the trip to
the United States as a pretext to stay and work in Japan so they
ordered Simangan to step down from the plane and have his
papers checked again. As a result, he was not allowed to fly that
day and his visa eventually expired and so he was not able to
donate his kidney to his ailing cousing in LA, California USA
which was his real purpose.
Obscenity
Miller vs. California, 37 L. Ed. 2d. 419
Summary: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) was a
landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein
the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of utterly
without socially redeeming value to that which lacks "serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." It is now referred to
as the Three-prong standard or the Miller test.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The basic guidelines for a trier of fact in
an obscenity matter must be: (a) whether the average person,
applying contemporary community standards, would find that the
work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b)
whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state
law and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
BURGER, C.J.
TAKE NOTE: Obscenity is not protected by the First
Amendment and thus can be regulated by the state.

However, the state must conform to the three-part test of

Miller v. California:
1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive
way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, specifically
defined by applicable state law; and
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value.

Gonzales vs. Kalaw-Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717 - Danet

Soriano vs. Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, March 15, 2010 Sarah

Barnes vs. Glen Theater, 498 U.S. 439 - Pau

Summary:
Glen Theatre and the Kitty Kat Lounge in South Bend, Indiana,
operated entertainment establishments with totally nude dancers.
An Indiana law regulating public nudity required dancers to wear
"pasties" and a "G-string" when they perform. The Theatre and
Lounge sued to stop enforcement of the statute.
F.C.C. vs. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726
Brief Fact Summary. A satiric humorist named George Carlin
(Carlin) recorded a 12-minute monologue entitled Filthy Words
before a live audience in a California theatre. Carlin began by

referring to his thoughts about the words that could not be said
on the public airwaves. Then, Carlin proceeded to list those
words and repeat them over and over again.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The concept of indecent is intimately
connected with the exposure of children to language that
describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by
contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium,
sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of the day
when there is reasonable risk that children may be in the
audience.

Renton vs. Playtime Theaters, 475 U.S. 41 - Danet

Summary: A zoning ordinance prohibited adult movie theatres
from being located within 1,000 feet of any residential zone,
church, park or school. The Respondent, Playtime Theatres, Inc.
(Respondent), claimed that the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution (Constitution)
were violated by the city ordinance.
Brethel School District vs. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 - Sarah

Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 - Pau

Keywords: Journalism, Students, school newspaper, freedom of
speech, first amendment

Reno vs. American Civil Liberties Union, Case No. 96-511,

June 26, 1997
Nature: Appeal from the United States district court for the
eastern district of Pennsylvania
Keywords: Regulation of materials distributed via the Internet,
Summary:
The federal government regulated sexually explicit material on
the Internet by prohibiting it unless the website could obtain the
users age verification.
Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996
(CDA) that criminalized providing obscene materials to minors by
on the internet were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
of the United States (Supreme Court).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A regulation may not burden adult
speech in order to protect minors if there is a less restrictive
alternative available to achieve the goal.
STEVENS, J.

Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition, April 16, 2002 - Danet

Summary: The Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)
defined prohibited child pornography to include explicit sexual
images which were meant to represent minors but did not use
any real children as subjects, being produced by other means
such as computer imaging. The Free Speech Coalition (P)
argued that this federal law violated the First Amendment.
Kennedy, J.

United States vs. American Library Association, Inc., June

23, 2003 - Sarah
Fernando v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159751, December 6,
2006 - Pau
Keywords : pornographic materials, obscenity, nudity
Assembly and Petition
The right of peaceful assembly enjoys primacy in the
hierarchy of rights.
In relation to other rights, how do you classify or consider the
right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of
grievances? The Supreme Court in a case said that the right to
peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances is,
together with freedom of speech, of expression and of the press,
a right that enjoy primacy in the realm of constitutional protection.
For these rights constitute the very basis of a functional
democratic policy, without which all the other rights would be
meaningless and unprotected. As stated in Jacinto vs. CA, 346
SCRA 665 (1997) the right to assembly and petition has been
upheld thus:
There is no question as to the petitioners rights to peaceful
assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievances
and, for that matter, to organize or form associations for
purposes not contrary to law, as well as to engage in peaceful
concerted activities. These rights are guaranteed by no less than
the Constitution. Jurisprudence abounds with hallowed

pronouncements defending and promoting the peoples rights. As

early as the onset of this country, the Court in U.S. vs. Apurado,
already upheld the right to assembly and petition and even went
as far as to acknowledge:
It is rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the
public assembly of the people to protest against grievances
whether real or imaginary, because eon such occasions feelings
is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the greater
the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect,
as a rule will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their
irresponsible followers. If instances of disorderly conduct occur
on such occasions, the guilty individuals should be sought out
and punished therefore, but the utmost discretion must be
exercised in drawing the line between an essentially peaceably
assembly and a tumultuous uprising. (citing U.S. vs. Apurado, 7
Phil. 422; Bayan, Karapatan, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas
(KMP), et al. vs. Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006).

Navarro vs. Villegas, 31 SCRA 73

PLAZA MIRANDA
NOTE: The essential elements of unlawful assembly are:
1. three or more persons must be assembled;
2. they must be assembled to do an unlawful act or being
assembled sh211 attempt to do a lawful act in a violent,
unlawful and tumultuous manner to the terror and
disturbance of others;
3. the three or more persons must have a common purpose
and act in concert to do the act complained of;

4) the intent or purpose necessary to render an assembly an

unlawful assembly need not exist at the outset but may be found
either at or after the time of the assembly;
5) it is immaterial whether the object which the persons
composing the assembly have in view is lawful or unlawful if the
intent is to effect the object of the assembly in such a manner as
to give firm and courageous persons in the neighborhood of such
assembly, ground to apprehend a breach of peace in the
consequence of it.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the following are considered
illegal assemblies :
1. any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose
of committing any of the crimes punishable by the Code
and
2. any meeting in which the audience whether armed or not
is incited to the commission of the crime of treason,
rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person
in authority or his agents. If a person present at the
meeting carries an unlicensed flrearm, it shall be
presumed that the purpose of such meeting, insofar as he
is concerned, is to commit acts punishable under the Code
and he shall be considered a leader or organizer of the
meeting. In illegal assemblies, the purpose is to incite in a
meeting the commission of treason, rebellion, sedition or
assault but the actual inciting is not a necessary element,
for otherwise, the act would be punjshable under inciting
to sedition.

PBM Employees vs. PBM, 51 SCRA 189 - Danet

Summary: Petitioners informed the respondent employers of
their schedule for a mass demonstration in protest for the alleged
abuses of the Pasig police. Respondent invoke that the
demonstration is a violation of their CBA agreement however
petitioners contend it is an exercise of their freedom to peaceable
assembly to seek redress of their grievances against the abusive
Pasig police and not a strike against their employer. Respondent
dismissed the petitioners and the court sustained their
demonstration is one of bargaining in bad faith.
Makasiar (J):
Reyes vs. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553 - Sarah
Malabanan vs. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359 - Pau
Summary: University students were suspended for organising a
protest rally.

Bayan vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006

Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), et al., petitioners in G.R. No.
169881
Summary: The three petitioners, Bayan, Jess del Prado, et al.,
and Kilusang Mayo Uno allege themselves to be staging a
peaceful mass assembly when police forces under the rule of BP
880 forcibly and violently dispersed them much to their dismay,
which incurred their members injuries and arrest. These groups
of concerned citizens are attesting that such manner of
dispersal of abiding by no permit, no rally policy, and

that delegation of powers in the local government (specifically by

the Mayor Lito Atienza) in the said dispersal were
unconstitutional, as well as the implementation of BP 880 itself.
They seek to stop such policies of ruthless dispersals, as it
violates their basic right to freedom of expression, redress of
grievances and most of all their right to peaceably assemble.

Primicias vs. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71 - Sarah

In Re: Valmonte, 296 SCRA xi - Danet
PROHIBITION OF RALLY > DOES NOT VIOLATE CONSTI

Sec. 5
Non-establishment of Religion
SECTION 5, Philippines Constitution - No law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.
A. Non-establishment of religion
Aglipay v. Ruiz - commemorative postage stamp Act. No.
4052 contemplates no religious purpose. What it gives is the
discretionary power to determine when the issuance if special
postage stamps would be advantageous to the government. The
only purpose of the commemorative postage stamps was to
advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists

Garces v. Estenzo statue of San Vicente Ferrer A resolution

of the barangay council for soliciting contributions to buy a statue
of the barangays patron saint and the use of such fund for said
purpose does not violate the Constitutions provision prohibiting
use of public funds for religious purpose; statue was purchased
by barangay funds so it belongs to the barangay and not to the
parish
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union joining a union
is prohibited by the Iglesia ni Cristo closed shop agreement
freedom of religion takes precedent over the right against
impairment of contracts
Islamic Dawah v. Executive Secretary Hala food products
Islamic Dawah v. Office of Muslim Affairs (OMA) Classifying a
food product as halal is a religious function because the
standards used are drawn from the Quran and Islamic beliefs.
State cannot classify food as halal.
B. Free Exercise of Religion
American Bible Society v. City of Manila selling bibles; tax The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship carries with it the right to
disseminate religious information. Any restraint of such right
could only be justified like other restraints of freedom of
expression on the grounds that there is clear and present danger
of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.
Ebralinag v. Superintendent saluting the flag; pledge
abandoned the ruling in Gerona. The 2-fold aspect of religious
freedom, (1) the absolute freedom to believe as long as such is

limited within the realm of thought, (2) the freedom to act on

ones belief, which may be regulated. It underscored the rule that
the only justification for relief is the existence of clear and present
danger, both grave and imminent, which is of serious evil to
public interest. In the case at bar, the Court held that the
Jehovahs Witnesses nonparticipation in the flag ceremony in no
way poses a clear and present danger to society. Thus, restraint
on the part of the government would be unjustified. Moreover, the
petitioners right to quality education, as granted by the
Constitution was likewise violated by effecting the expulsion.
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals X rating of a TV show Mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of
other religions do not impose a clear and present danger, which
the State should protect its citizens from. X-rating not justified.
The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold
aspect, viz., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's
beliefs . The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined
within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation
where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the
public welfare It is error to think that the mere invocation of
religious freedom will stalemate the State and render it impotent
in protecting the general welfare. The inherent police power can
be exercised to prevent religious practices inimical to society.
However, prior restraint on speech, including religious speech,
cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing.

Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201 - Pau

POSTAGE STAMP > DOES NOT VIOLATE CONSTITUTION

Taruc vs. Bishop, G.R. No. 144801, March 10, 2005

Summary: The petitioners were lay members of the Philippine
Independent Church (PIC) in Socorro, Surigao City. Petitioner led
by Taruc clamoured for the transfer of parish priest Rustom
Florano for the reason that Fr. Floranos wifes family belonged to
a political party opposed to petitioner Tarucs. Bishop De la Cruz
found this reason too flimsy so he did not give in to the request.
Things worsened when Truc conducted an open mass for the
town fiesta celebrated by Fr Ambong who was not a member of
the clergy of the diocese of Surigao. Petitioners were then
excommunicated from the PIC.
CORONA, J.
Ratio: The case at bar is purely ecclasiastical matters which is
considered to be outside the providence of the court due to the
form of government where the complete separation of civil and
ecclesiastical authority is insisted upon. Hence, the civil courts
must not allow themselves to intrude unduly in matters of an
ecclesiastical nature.
Civil Courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of a
religious organization except for the protection of civil or
property rights. Those rights may be the subject of litigation in a
civil court, and the courts have jurisdiction to determine
controverted claims to the title, use, or possession of church
property.
The expulsion of membership of the petitioners was legally
made. They have not violated the due process of law because

they were given opportunity to be heard when they were also

warned of the consequences of their actions.

Doctrine: Civil Courts will not interfere in the internal

affairs of a religious organization except for the protection of
civil or property rights. Those rights may be the subject of
litigation in a civil court, and the courts have jurisdiction to
determine controverted claims to the title, use, or
possession of church property.
Garces vs. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
Nature: Constitutionality of four resolutions of the barangay
council of Valencia, Ormoc City, regarding the acquisition of the
wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer to be used in the
celebration of his annual feast day. That issue was spawned by
the controversy as to whether the parish priest or a layman
should have the custody of the image.
Keywords: Wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer to be used in a
fiesta, custody battle of the said image,
AQUINO, J.
Issue: Whether or Not any freedom of religion clause in the
Constitution violated.
Ratio: No. As said by the Court this case is a petty quarrel over
the custody of the image.
The image was purchased in connection with the celebration
of the barrio fiesta and not for the purpose of favoring any

religion nor interfering with religious matters or beliefs of

the barrio residents. Any activity intended to facilitate the
worship of the patron saint(such as the acquisition) is not
illegal.
Doctrine: Not every governmental activity which involves
the expenditure of public funds and which has some
religious tint is violative of the constitutional provisions
regarding separation of church and state, freedom of
worship and banning the use of public money or property.

School District vs. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 - Danet

Summary:
The Abington case concerns Bible-reading in Pennsylvania
public schools. At the beginning of the school day, students who
attended public schools in the state of Pennsylvania were
required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After
completing these readings, school authorities required all
Abington Township students to recite the Lord's Prayer. Students
could be excluded from these exercises by a written note from
their parents to the school.
Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 - Danet
Summary: Pennsylvania has a statute that reimburses religious
schools for teacher salaries, textbooks, and other instructional
materials. Rhode Island has a similar statute that allows the state
to pay private school teachers a 15% salary supplement.
The state reimburses parochial schools for certain expenses
associated with the education of its children.

BURGER
Zobrest vs. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 - Sarah

Agostini vs. Felton, 138 L. Ed. 2d. 391 - Pau

Summary
This case seeks to reverse the Courts mandate in a prior case,
Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985), on the grounds that
Establishment Clause jurisprudence has changed and thereby
overruled the holding of Aguilar.

Mitchell vs. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 - Pau

Keywords; religion, lemon test, establishment cause
Summary
Court ruled that it was permissible for loans to be made to
religious schools under Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation
and Improvement Act of 1981.
Note:
Lemon Test is based from the case Lemon v Kurtzman The
Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test"
(named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon),[2] which details the
requirements for legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:

The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (also known

as the Purpose Prong)
The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance
nor inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
The statute must not result in an "excessive government
entanglement" with religious affairs. (also known as the
Entanglement Prong) Factors.
Zelman Superintendent of Public Instruction of Ohio vs.
Simmons-Harris, Case No. 00-1751, June 27, 2002
Nature: CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Keywords: Establishment Clause, Ohios Pilot Project
Scholarship, provides tuition aid for certain students in the
Cleveland City School District.
Summary: The Cleveland public schools were performing badly,
and in an effort to resolve this issue, the state of Ohio put into
effect a school voucher plan under which parents could opt to
enroll their children in private schools taking part in the program.
Since a great majority of the private schools were affiliated to one
or other religious group, Ohio taxpayers filed an action against
the program pleading violation of the Establishment Clause.
Doctrine: The Establishment Clause guarantees freedom of
religion, and strictly prohibits the government from passing
any legislation to establish an official religion or preferring
one religion over another; it enforces the "separation of
church and state." Since the program was designed to provide
no incentive for either religious private, secular private, or public
schools, the taxpayers did not want their money to pay for the
children who wanted religious schooling.

County of Allegheny vs. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S.

573 - Danet
Summary: Religious holiday decorations were displayed on
some of the citys major governmental buildings. Court ruled that,
government may not endorse a particular religion. Endorsement
is determined by the context of the use of religious symbols.
Rehnquist
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board vs Pinette, 515 U.S.
753 - Sarah
Islamic DaWah Council vs. Office of the Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003 - Pau

Soriano vs. Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, March 15, 2010

Summary: Soriano made expletive remarks on his tv program,
Ang Dating Daan, directed towards a minister of Inglesia ni
Kristo. After the airing, members of the INC filed several
complaints against him resulting in a suspension from the
MTRCB. Soriano claims that his statements fall under the
protection of Section 5, Article III.