7/25/2019 Alonzo vs. CA Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alonzo-vs-ca-digest 1/2

Alonzo vs. CA

FACTS:

Dr. Alonzo is the Field Operations Ofcer or Region XI o the hilippine

!edical Care Co""ission #!CC$. As a %eld inspector& she is assigned to

inspect clinics in order to see to it that clinics are properl' ollo(ing r)les andreg)lations o the hilippine !edical Care Co""ission. She inspected Sto.

*i+o !edical Clinic in Astorga& Sta. Cr)z& Davao del S)r& and O)r ,ad' o 

Fati"a !edical Clinic in -)ihing& agono'& Davao del S)r. /oth o these

clinics (ere o(ned and "anaged 0' Dr. Angeles 1elasco& "arried to 2)dge

Dan 1elasco o the !TC3agono'& Davao del S)r. Ater the inspection& Dr.

Alonzo s)0"itted her report on her %ndings to Dr. 2es)s Ta"esis& !CC 1ice3

Chair"an.

A portion o the s)0"itted report read:

4In all& this partic)lar clinic sho)ld 0e closel' "onitored 0eca)se& aside ro"

the a0ove "entioned violations& the h)s0and is a 5)dge and it gives the" a

certain a"o)nt o 6)nto)cha0ilit'6. In act& the' "a7e co)rt s)its their

pasti"e.8

Finding s)ch portion to 0e li0elo)s& Dr. 1elasco and her h)s0and& 2)dge Dan

1elasco& then %led a co"plaint or li0el against the petitioner.

ISS9:

;hether or not the <)estioned report o Dr. Alonzo is li0elo)s.

eld:

*o.

Article =>= o the Revised enal Code provides that a li0el is a p)0lic and

"alicio)s i"p)tation o a cri"e& or o a vice or deect& real or i"aginar'& or

an' act or o"ission& condition& stat)s& or circ)"stance tending to ca)se the

dishonor& discredit& or conte"pt o a nat)ral or 5)ridical person or to 0lac7en

the "e"or' o one (ho is dead.

For an i"p)tation then to 0e li0elo)s& the ollo(ing re<)isites ")st conc)r:

#a$ it ")st 0e dea"ator'?#0$ it ")st 0e "alicio)s?

#c$ it ")st 0e given p)0licit'? and

#d$ the victi" ")st 0e identi%a0le.

An' o the i"p)tations covered 0' Article =>= is dea"ator' and& )nder the

general r)le laid do(n in Article =>@& ever' dea"ator' i"p)tation is

7/25/2019 Alonzo vs. CA Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alonzo-vs-ca-digest 2/2

pres)"ed to 0e "alicio)s& even i it 0e tr)e? i no good intention and

 5)sti%a0le "otive or "a7ing it is sho(n& ecerpt in the ollo(ing cases:

B. A private co"")nication "ade 0' an' person to another in the

peror"ance o an' legal& "oral or social d)t'? and

. A air and tr)e report& "ade in good aith& (itho)t an' co""ents orre"ar7s? o an' 5)dicial legislative or other ofcial proceedings (hich are not

o con%dential nat)re& or o an' state"ent& report or speech delivered in said

proceedings& or o an' other act peror"ed 0' p)0lic ofcers in the eercise

o their )nctions.

 The privileged character o these co"")nications is not a0sol)te& 0)t "erel'

<)ali%ed since the' co)ld still 0e sho(n to 0e "alicio)s 0' proo o act)al

"alice or "alice in act. The 0)rden o proo in this regard is on the plainti 

or the prosec)tion.

)0lication in the la( o li0el "eans the "a7ing 7no(n o the dea"ator'

"atter& ater it has 0een (ritten& to so"e person other than the person o 

(ho" it is (ritten. I the state"ent is sent straight to a person (ho" it is

(ritten& there is no p)0lication.

 The Co)rt held that the report in this case alls (ithin the %rst paragraph o 

Article =>@ o the Revised enal Code. Conse<)entl'& the pres)"ption o 

"alice or "alice in la( (as negated 0' the privileged character o the report.

 The privilege "a' onl' 0e lost 0' proo o "alice in act.

SC disagree (ith the concl)sion o the trial co)rt that "alice in act (as d)l'proved in this case since the petitioner 4(as "oved 0' ill3(ill8 0eca)se Dr.

1elasco did not grant her 4a loan o B&>EE8 and re)sed 4to 0ear the

vacation epenses o her children.8 This concl)sion is p)rel' inconcl)sive or&

as a "atter o act& Dr. 1elasco hersel (as )ncertain o these incidents

indeed incited the petitioner.

All told then& the prosec)tion in this case (as )na0le to prove "alice in act.

Finall' there (as& in la(& no p)0lication o the <)estioned report. The r)le is

settled that a co"")nication "ade 0' a p)0lic ofcer in the discharge o hisofcial d)ties to another or to a 0od' o ofcers having a d)t' to peror" (ith

respect to the s)05ect "atter o the co"")nication does not a"o)nt to a

p)0lication (ithin the "eaning o the la( on dea"ation.

;hereore& the instant petition is -RA*TD.