7/16/2015 G.R.No.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/may1992/gr_48772_1992.html 1/5

PHILIPPINEJURISPRUDENCEFULLTEXTTheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundationG.R.No.48772May8,1992PASTORT.BRAVOvs.COURTOFAPPEALS

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.48772May8,1992

PASTORT.BRAVO,petitioner,vs.

COURTOFAPPEALSandPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.

NOCON,J.:

ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarifiledbytheaccusedPastorBravoofthedecision1datedJanuary7,1977of theCourt of Appeals modifying the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch XVIII InCriminalCaseNo.Q2937forLIBEL,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE,thedecisionunderreviewisherebyMODIFIED,asfollows

AppellantPastorBravoisherebysentencedtosufferanindeterminatepenaltyofFour(4)monthsof arrestomayor, as minimum, to two (2) years of prision correccional, as maximum, for the crime of libel with theaccessorypenaltiesofthelaw,andwithrespecttohiscivil liability,saidappellant isherebyorderedtopayBibianoVia thesumofP50,000.00asmoraldamagesP6,600.00asactualdamagesandP5,000.00asattorney'sfees,atappellant'scosts.

SOORDERED.2

Theinformationuponwhichthisprosecutionwasbasedisafollows:

Thatonoraboutthe23rddayofMarch,1972,inQuezonCity,Philippines,theabovenamedaccused,withoutanylawfulintentionandjustifiablecause,andwithdeliberateintenttodefameandinjurethereputationofoneBIBIANOM.VIAandtoexposehimtopubliccontempt,ridiculeanddishonor,did,thenandthere,willfully,unlawfully, maliciously and publicly, submit a report to the Department of Justice, Manila Chief of theConstabulary,ManilaChiefofPolice,NagaCityChiefofPolice,Tinambac,CamarinesSur,statingamongotherthings,asfollows:

TheProvincialCommanderPCHeadquarters

NagaCity

Sir:

Iwish to report, forpurposesof records that theabovenamedpersons,which Iaccused forrobbery,asevidencedbythecaptionofmycomplainthavegivenmeseveralthreatsofmylifeand the lifeof themembersofmy family, threats toburnmy residentialhouseatTinambac,CamarinesSurandthreatstoaccusemeofseveralconcoctedcrimes.

xxxxxxxxx

Verytrulyyours,(SGD)PASTORT.BRAVO

xxxxxxxxx

thusimputinguponsaidBibianoM.Viathecommissionofcrimes,saidaccusedknowingfullywellthatthesameareabsolutelyfalseandwithoutbasisinfact,andasamatteroffact,saidcomplaintwasdismissedonMarch27,1972bytheFiscalofCamarinesSurandthereportmentionedaboveorderedarchivedforlackof

7/16/2015 G.R.No.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/may1992/gr_48772_1992.html 2/5

evidence,therebycastingandcausingdishonor,discreditandcontemptuponthesaidBibianoM.Via,tohisdamageandprejudiceinsuchamountasmaybeawardedundertheprovisionsoftheCivilCode.3

Theprosecution'sevidenceuponwhichthetrialcourtbaseditsfindingofguiltbeyondreasonabledoubtisasfollows:

PrivaterespondentBibianoViainstitutedacivilsuitagainstpetitionerPastorBravowiththeCFIofCamarinesSurwhichrenderedaDecisioninfavoroftheformer.WhensaiddecisionwasappealedtotheCourtofAppeals,awritofexecutionpendingappealwasissuedbysaidcourt.4Petitioner, to forestall theexecution, filedamotiontostaysaidexecutionwith theappellatecourt,whichthe lattergranted inaresolutiondatedAugust17,1971.5Acopyofsaid resolutionwasfurnishedcomplainant'scounselonAugust23,1971.Thelatterdidnotdoanythingtostopfurtherexecutionofsaidwrit.6

However, since it appears thatSheriffRenatoMaderawasnevernotifiedof theorder tostay theexecutionof thewrit,7Sheriff Madera together with somemembers of the Philippine Constabulary proceeded to execute the writ in theabsenceofrespondentVia,byseizingthepropertiesofpetitionerandsellingthesametoprivaterespondentViaatapublicauctiononSeptember10,1971.8

Asa resultof theseizureofhispropertiesbywayofexecution,petitioner filedacomplaintonOctober25,1971with thefiscal'sofficeofCamarinesSuragainstprivaterespondentVia,andhisothercodefendantsforthecrimeofrobberywithforceuponthings.9

Whilethecomplaintforrobberywasstillpendinginvestigationwiththefiscal'sofficepetitioneronoraboutMarch8,1972,furnishedcopiesofsaidcomplainttogetherwithhisaffidavitthefollowinggovernmentalagenciestowit:(1)BureauofInternalRevenue Regional Office, Naga City (2) Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Naga City (3) Municipal Treasurer,Tinambac,CamarinesSur(4)theProvincialCommander,PCHeadquarters,NagaCity(5)theChiefofPolice,Tinambac,CamarinesSur (6) thePhilippineCoconutAdministration,Manila (7)BureauofCommerce,Manila (8)BureauofLaborRegionalOffice,NagaCityand(9)theSocialSecuritySystemRegionalOffice,NagaCity.10

ThecomplaintandaffidavitnarratedtheallegedcommissionofthecrimeofrobberyonSeptember1,1971whichgaverisetothefilingofacomplaintwiththeFiscal'sOfficeofCamarinesSur.

Thecirculationofthecomplaintandaffidavithasforitspurposetheruininganddamagingofprivaterespondent'sreputationhumiliatinghimandembarrassinghimbeforehis friendsandbusinessassociatesand tohis former copoliceofficersofQuezonCity,privaterespondentbeingaformerQuezonCityPoliceChief.

Again, onMarch 23, 1971, petitioner sent a letterreport to theProvincialCommander ofNagaCity alleging that privaterespondentVia, togetherwith his coaccused in the robbery casehave threatenedpetitioner andmemberof his familyseveraltimesthattheyeventhreatenedtoaccusepetitionerofseveralconcoctedcrimesand,asamatteroffact,theyhadalready filedacomplaintof illegalpossessionof firearmagainstpetitioner.11 Copies of said letter were furnished theSecretaryofJustice,ManilatheChiefofConstabulary,ManilaandtheChiefofPolice,NagaCity.12

Uponreceiptof the letterreport, theSecretaryofJusticedirected theprovincial fiscalofCamarinesSur to investigate theallegedthreatsagainstpetitioner.

OnMarch27,1972,thecomplaintforrobberywasdismissedbytheprovincialfiscalofCamarinesSur"forwantofevidencetoprovetheexistenceofaprimafaciecaseofrobberyagainsttherespondents."13Private respondentVia receivedacopyofthenoticeofdismissalonApril13,1972.

OnJuly17,1972,forlackofevidence,thecomplaintofpetitioneragainstprivaterespondentforthreatswaslikewisearchivedbytheprovincialfiscalafterconductinganinvestigation.14

OnOctober 15, 1972,SheriffRenatoMadera delivered to private respondent a copy of the letter complaint of petitioneralleging threatsmadeby theprivate respondentagainst thepetitioner, causingprivate respondent to fileacomplaint forLIBELagainstthepetitioneronMarch21,1973.

Aftertrialonthemerits,adecisionwasrenderedbythecourtbelow,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds defendant Pastor T. Bravo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of twoseparatecrimesofLibelandtherebeingneitheraggravatingnormitigatingcircumstance,herebysentencessaiddefendant toan indeterminatepenaltyofFOUR(4)monthsofarrestomayor,asminimum, toTWO(2)yearsofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum,foreachofthetwoseparatecrimesoflibelcommittedtosuffertheaccessorypenaltiesofthelawandtopaythecosts.

7/16/2015 G.R.No.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/may1992/gr_48772_1992.html 3/5

Withrespecttohiscivilliability,theCourtfurtherordersthedefendantPastorBravotopayBibianoViatheamountofP300,000.00asmoraldamages,topayP6,600.00asactualdamagesandtopayP10,000.00asattorney'sfees.15

Notsatisfiedwiththedecision,petitionersoughtappellatereviewbytheCourtofAppeals,whichmodifiedthedecisionofthetrialcourtbydismissing the libelcasearising from the robberycomplainton thegroundofprescriptionand reducing theawardsofmoraldamagesandattorney'sfees.

Petitioner'sMotionforReconsiderationdatedMarch9,1977andhisSupplementalMotionforReconsiderationdatedMarch19,1977havingbeenbothdeniedonJuly20,1978,petitionernowcomestoUswithhispetitionforcertiorari.

Petitioner'scontentionthathisrobberycomplaintnecessarilypartakesofthenatureofanabsoluteprivilegedcommunicationforwhichhecouldnotbeheldcriminallyliable,hasnolegtostandonasthecriminalcomplaintforrobberyneverreachedthestatusofajudicialproceeding,havingbeendismissedbytheprovincialfiscalofCamarinesSur"forwantofevidencetoprove the existence of a prima facie case against the respondents." 16 Consequently, there are none of the alleged"utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleading, petitions and motions" tospeak of, which the case of Sison v. David 17 cited by the petitioner, considers as belonging to the class of"communication that is absolutely privileged." Furthermore, said contention is alreadymoot and academic as thelibelchargebasedonthecriminalcomplaintforrobberywasalreadydismissedbytherespondentCourtofAppealsonthegroundofprescription.

Astopetitioner'scontentionthathisletterreportisaqualifiedprivilegedcommunicationandthatnomalicewasestablished,WefindthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsrefutingthesamesupportedbytheevidenceonrecordshowingthatpetitionerwasmotivatedbyactualmaliceinfilingtherobberycomplaintandtheletterreportoftheallegedthreatsofprivaterespondentVia.

Firstly,petitionergaveunnecessarypublicitytothefactthatprivaterespondentViawasadefendantinarobberycasewhichappearedinathreecolumnheadlineinthe"BicolStar".

Secondly,petitionerfalselyaccusedprivaterespondentofthreateninghim,knowingfullywellthatitwasthegroupofprivaterespondentandnotprivaterespondentpersonallywhothreatenedhim,afactheadmittedinopencourt,therebyimputingonprivaterespondentthecommissionofacrime.

Likewise,petitioner'sallegationthatprivaterespondenthadthreatenedtoaccusehimofseveralconcoctedcrimesandinfacthadalreadyfiledacomplaintofillegalpossessionoffirearmsagainsthim,issimplynottrue,somuchsothatpetitionerwasforcedtodenyinopencourtthatprivaterespondenthadanythingtodowiththefilingofthecomplaintbutthatitwasSgts.GuerreroandBuendiawhodidso.

AscorrectlyobservedbytheCourtofAppealsinits,decision:

Theevident falsityofappellant's lettercomplaint is furtherprovedbyhisunexplained failure topresentnotevenoneofthesupposedfiveinformantsorsourcesofhisbeliefsthathereincomplainantViaandhiscoaccusedintherobberycase,isabouttoframehimupforthecommissionofseveralconcoctedcrimes,etc.,mentionedinsaidlettercomplaint(Exh.C).

Finally on this score, there is this undisputed evidence on record to show themotivationwhich propelledappellanttoharborillfeelings,hatredandrevengeagainsthereincomplainant,whicheventuallytriggeredhisfilingtherobberycomplaint,andhislettercomplaint,andingivingsaidimputationsundueandunnecessarywide publicity. TheCourt refers to a civil case asWe have said earlier where complainant Viawas theprincipalplaintiffandappellantthesoledefendantwhereaftertrialanadversedecisionwasrenderedagainstappellantandinfavorofVia.WhenthecasewasappealedbyappellanttothiscourtdocketedasCAG.R.No. 48042R (Exhs.) or 3, p. 28, rec.) thisCourt ordered the execution of the appealed decision pendingappeal (Exh. N, p. 25, rec.), resulting in the seizure of the appellant's goods, etc. and sold to hereincomplainant Via in an auction sale (Exh. 2, p. 44, rec.) conducted therein. This execution impoverishedappellant who was a prosperous businessman before the levy on his properties hence it is but naturallyexpected that from this time on there was instilled in appellants heart, a burning hatred, revenge and illfeelingstoevenupwiththecomplainantwhohadcausedgreatmisfortunetohimandtohisfamilyandthenetresultarethosequestionedfalsewrittenseriousimputationsofrobbery,gravethreats,andframeupcharges,etc.hulledagainstVia.

Theforegoingbeliesappellant'sclaimofhavingactedingoodfaithinauthoringthequestionedaspersionsagainstVia.18

Thus,evenifsaidletterreportwasinthenatureofaqualifiedprivilegedcommunication,suchprivilegesislostbyproofofactualmaliceasinthecaseatbar.Moreover,saidletterreportlostitscharacterasaqualifiedprivilegedcommunicationthe

7/16/2015 G.R.No.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/may1992/gr_48772_1992.html 4/5

momentpetitionerfurnishedcopiesthereoftoseveralprovincialandnationalgovernmentagencieswhichhadnointerest,rightordutyintheprosecutionofsaidchargesandthegeneralruleisthatanywrittenorprintedstatementfalselycharginganotherwiththecommissionofacrimeislibelousperse.

PetitioneralsocontendsthathewasconvictedofalibelchargewhichisatvariancewiththeonespecifiedintheinformationsincehewasbeingchargedwithlibelallegedlytohavebeencommittedinQuezonCityandnotinNagaCitywheresaidlibelwasallegedlycommitted.

Article360,3rdparagraphoftheRevisedPenalCodeprovidesthat:

Art.360.Personsresponsible.

xxxxxxxxx

Thecriminalandcivilactionfordamagesincasesofwrittendefamationsasprovidedforinthischapter,shallbefiledsimultaneouslyorseparatelywiththecourtoffirstinstanceoftheprovinceorcitywherethelibelousarticle isprintedandfirstpublishedorwhereanyoftheoffendedpartiesactuallyresidesat. thetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense....

ThefactthattheinformationallegedthattheoffenseoflibelwascommittedonoraboutMarch23,1972inQuezonCityismerelyincompliancewiththeaforementionedprovisionofthelawwhichallowsthefilingofalibelcomplaintattheplacewhereanyof theoffendedparties reside toestablish thepropervenue. In fact, there isnovariancebetween theoffensechargedintheinformationandtheoffenseprovedduringthetrialsinceitwasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthelibelcommittedbythepetitionerinNagaCityistheverysameoffensechargedinthequestionedinformationwhichmerelyquotedverbatimpetitioner'srobberycomplaintandletterreport.Furthermore,intheoffenseoflibel,theplaceofitscommissionisnotanindispensableelementpursuanttotheaforementionedlawforalibelcasemaybefiledwherethelibelousarticlewasprintedandfirstpublishedorintheplacewhereanyoftheoffendedpartyresides,andsincecomplainantViaresidesinQuezonCityatthetimeofthecommissionofthesupposedlibelousarticle,thenitfollowsthatthelowercourthadproperlyacquiredjurisdictiontotrysaidcase.

Finally,petitionercontends that therewasno fiscalwhowasphysicallypresentduring theproceedingsof the libelcasessincetheentireevidencefortheprosecutionwaspresentedbyaprivateprosecutorwhohadnoexpressauthorityfromthefiscaltorepresenttheState,therebyrenderingtheentiretrialinvalidasenunciatedinthecaseofPeoplevs.Beriales.19

Petitionerisinerror.ThecaseofPeoplevs.Berialesisnotapplicabletothecaseatbarbecauseinsaidcase,thecityfiscaldidnotappearinallofthetrialcourt'sproceedings,fromthearraignmenttothepromulgationofthedecisionofconviction,duetothepersistentfailureandrefusalofthecityfiscaltosubmittothetrialcourtitsresolutiononthereinvestigationofthecriminalcase,anditwasonlytheprivateprosecutorwhohandledthecasewithouttheauthorityandactiveparticipationoftheprosecutingfiscal.However,inthecaseatbar,itcannotbesaidthatthetrialfiscalneverappearedduringthetrialofsaidcase.AspointedoutbytheSolicitorGeneralinitscomment:

But in thecaseatbar,duringthearraignmentofappellantbefore the lowercourt (CFIofRizalstationed inQuezonCity,BranchXVIII inCrim.CaseNo.Q2837), it is presumed that the prosecutionwas personallyrepresentedbyaprosecutingfiscalsincethereisnoshowingintherecordsofthecaseofhisabsencethereto(pp.2122,Records).Then,onthefirstdayofthetrialonthemeritsofsaidcase,whichwasonOctober22,1973at9:00o'clock in themorning,FiscalModestoC.Juansonpersonallyappearedand represented theprosecution.Although the transcript of the said proceedings is silent on thematter, thepresenceofFiscalJuanson in court in effect gave authority to the private prosecutor, Atty. Benjamin Grecia, to handle theprosecutionunderhis(fiscal's)directcontrolandsupervision.Andthisimpliedauthoritygrantedbythesaidprosecuting fiscal to the private prosecutor continued for the succeeding proceedings as indicated by thestenographersconcerned in their transcriptsof theproceedingsheldonOctober23,1973andFebruary4,1974whenitisspecificallystatedtherein:"Fortheprosecution:Atty.BenjaminGrecia,underthesupervisionand control of the City Fiscal" (See Annexes "3" and "5" Motion for Reconsideration). The same impliedauthoritygrantedbythesaidprosecutingfiscaltotheprivateprosecutorwasacknowledgedbythedefensecounsel when, despite the absence of the prosecuting fiscal on October 24, 1973, which was but acontinuation of the crossexamination of the prosecution witness Bibiano Via, said defense counselproceeded to ask questions of said witness, after which the private prosecutor offered the prosecution'sexhibits and rested its case. The same is true during the hearing of February 4, 1974 when, despite theabsenceof the prosecuting fiscal, said defense counsel proceeded to present the appellant as a defensewitnessandthereafterallowedtheprivateprosecutortocrossexaminethedefensewitness.Byallowingtheprivate prosecutor to present the evidence for the prosecution, and to crossexamine the prosecutionwitnesses, offering no objection nor questioning the absence of the prosecuting fiscal, the said defensecounselineffectacknowledgedtheauthoritygrantedbytheprosecutingfiscaltothesaidprivateprosecutortohandletheprosecutionofthecasebasedonthecontinuingauthoritygrantedbytheprosecutingfiscalevenatthestartofthetrialofthiscriminalcasebeforethetrialcourt.Andfinally,onthehearingofFebruary5,1974,whichwas the lastproceedingsheld in this case.FiscalModestoC. Juansonwaspersonallypresentand

7/16/2015 G.R.No.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/may1992/gr_48772_1992.html 5/5

activelyhandledthecasefortheprosecution,asshownbythefactthat,afterthedefenseoffereditsexhibitsandresteditscase,FiscalJuansoninterposednoobjectionstosomeofthedefenseexhibitsandobjectedtotheotherexhibitsandtothe"remarksandinterpretations"ofthedefensecounselinofferinghisexhibits(pp.2728,tsn,Feb.5,1974).ThepresenceofFiscalJuansonduringthelasthearingofthiscriminalcaseandhisactiveparticipationinthesaidhearinghastheeffectofconfirminghispreviousauthoritygrantedtotheprivateprosecutorforthelattertohandletheprosecutionofthecaseduringsomeofhisabsencesincourtandfurtherratifyingalltheactsoftheprivateprosecutorpursuancetosuchauthority.

(page67,CommentdatedApril29,1977filedbyAppelleeinCAG.R.16892CR)20

WHEREFORE,findingnoreversibleerrorintheassaileddecisionoftherespondentCourtofAppeals,thesameisherebyAFFIRMEDintoto,andthepetitionforcertioraridismissedforlackofmerit.

SOORDERED.

MelencioHerrera,Paras,PadillaandRegalado,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1CAG.R.No.16892CRentitledPeopleofthePhilippinesvs.PastorT.Bravo.Ponente:JusticeEmilioA.GancaycoJusticeMamaD.BusranandJusticeSamuelF.Reyes,concurring.

2CA'sdecision,Rollo,p.29.

3Annex"A",pp.14and16.

4Exhibit"N".

5Exhibit"3"Exhibit"O".

6Exhibit"3C".

7Exhibit"01".

8T.S.N.,October23,1973,pp.2932.

9Exhibits"A"and"H".

10Exhibit"I".

11Exhibit"C".

12Exhibits"C4"and"C6".

13Exhibits"B"and"B3".

14Exhibits"D"and"D1".

15RTC'sdecision,2324Records,pp.114115.

16Exhibits"B"and"B3"T.S.N.October22,1973,pp.79.

171SCRA60.

18CA'sdecision,pp.1mRollo,pp.2526.

1970SCRA361(1976).

20OSG'sComment,Rollo,pp.5556.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation