VASQUEZ VS CA (2000)

Atty Gil: What happened in this case?

Student: Rodolfo R. Vasquez is a resident of the Tondo Foreshore Area. Sometime in April 1986, he and some 37 families from the area went to
see then National Housing Authority (NHA) General Manager Lito Atienza regarding their complaint against their Barangay Chairman, Jaime
Olmedo. After their meeting with Atienza and other NHA officials, petitioner and his companions were met and interviewed by newspaper
reporters at the NHA compound concerning their complaint.

Atty Gil: What was their complaint against the Barangay captain? So nagreklamao sila sa NHA because there properties were sought to be taken
for this project. They went out of the NHA. Nay mag reporters asking them what happened. So they said some things that purportedly damaging
to the brgy captain. What did they say?

Student: The supposed allegation. Of Vasquez was… nakigpagsabwatan unman si Chairman Jaime Olmedo upang makamkam ang may 14 na lote
ng lupa.

Atty. Gil: In other words, ni connive si brgy captain with NHA to get this property illegally. So there was that imputation and because of that the
brgy captain filed a case for libel against Vasquez. Is this person, Vasquez, liable for libel?

Was he held liable by the Supreme Court for libel? Yes or No?

Student: NO, Sir.

Atty. Gil: Why? Why was he held not liable?

In the lower courts guilty. So it reached the Supreme Court. And before the SC, he was not guilty, not liable for libel. Why?

Student: His not guilty because … even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public
official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not.

Atty. Gil: What article in the RPC was applied by the Court here?

Student: Article 361 siR

Atty. Gil: Which provides for a defence. And that is? What kind of proof? The proof of?

Student: A rule placing on the accused the burden of showing the truth of allegations of official misconduct and/or good motives and justifiable
ends for making …

Atty Gil: The proof of truth noh.

In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true,
and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.

Did they speak the truth here?

Student: No sir…

Atty. Gil: So they were lying? Diba they were acquitted? So did they speak the truth? Were they able to successfully claim this defence? Yes.
Why? How did the Court explain?

Student:

Atty Gil: The same provision also provides for the rule involving public officials, against public employees.

Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been
made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.

In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.
So kani gigamit ang Article 361. So what should you prove? If you say damaging statements against a public officer or employee? unsaman? You
must able to? What?

Student: the burden of showing the truth of allegations sir

Atty Gil: he must be able to prove that whatever he is saying must be truthful. Were they able to prove the truthfulness of his allegations against
tis brgy captain?

Student: No sir… Yes… Yes…

Atty. Gil: what was the basis? Na truthful ilang statements? Because?

He was able to do so because he presented this letter to the NHA General stating that, materially, what are the charges were. His allegation that,
through connivance with NHA officials, complainant, the captain, was able to obtain title to the properties in question. The was anchored on a
report, on this letter. Meaning dili baseless yang accusations because it had basis. In addition, the existence of these 2 memoranda recommending
the filing of administrative charges against the NHA officials responsible for the alleged irregular consolidation of lots.

In other words, he was able to prove the allegations to be true. And calls for the application of Article 361, proof of truth. Specially second
paragaraph because these imputations were revealed against a public official. Moreover, the statement, dapat not nadismiss na ang case. The
court furthered its discussion by discussing the lack of presence of malice. Walay malice in this case.

The rule of actual malice is that even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public
official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not.

We relate this to the fair documentary doctrine. If it is a statement against a public figure, as a rule, you can raise that as a defence, this kind of
privilege. But you can still be held liable if it is proved that the application of this privilege… removes the element of presumption of malice. So
karon mushift na sa prosecution to prove that there was malice. If it is proved that the statement is untrue, not based on facts. Then you can be
held liable. In this case there was no malice. Again, the statements were based on actual facts.

Anyway, in this case the prosecution failed to prove not only that the statements made by the accused were false but also that he made them
with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.

The burden of showing the truth of allegations of official misconduct and/or good motives and justifiable ends for making such allegations
infringes on the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. That is why it is the burden of the prosecution, of the alleging party, to prove
malice in cases involving public officers relating to their official conduct. Again, makita nimo ang distinction sa defamatory statements made
against public officers. You can use truth as a defense.