Probable Cause in Libel Cases: A Delicate Balance Between Free Speech and Reputation

G.R. No. 149261, December 15, 2010

Imagine your reputation hanging in the balance because of a single statement. In the Philippines, libel law attempts to strike a balance between protecting an individual’s reputation and upholding the right to freedom of expression. This case, Azucena B. Corpuz v. Roman G. Del Rosario, delves into the complexities of determining probable cause in libel cases, particularly when the defense of privileged communication is raised. Understanding the nuances of this legal landscape is crucial for anyone communicating in a professional or public setting.

The Interplay of Libel, Probable Cause, and Free Speech

Libel, as defined under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, 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. The elements of libel are:

• Imputation of a crime, vice, or defect.
• The imputation must be malicious.
• It must be given publicity.
• The victim must be identifiable.

The determination of probable cause for filing an information in court is an executive function, primarily belonging to the public prosecutor and, ultimately, the Secretary of Justice. Judicial review of the Secretary of Justice’s resolution is limited to determining whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code also provides exceptions, outlining instances of privileged communication where malice is not presumed. One such exception is:

“A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty.”

This exception becomes crucial when assessing whether a statement, even if defamatory on its face, should be shielded from libel prosecution due to the context and intent behind it.

The Case of Corpuz vs. Del Rosario: A Battle of Memos

The case revolves around an affidavit-complaint filed by Assistant Solicitor General Roman G. del Rosario against Assistant Solicitor General Azucena B. Corpuz for libel. Del Rosario claimed that a memorandum issued by Corpuz on June 13, 1997, was malicious and intended to discredit him. The specific statement in question was, “x x x, there is no such thing as ‘palabra de honor’ as far as ASG del Rosario is concerned.”

The Investigating Prosecutor found probable cause for libel, stating that the words were defamatory and imputed a defect on Del Rosario’s integrity. The prosecutor also noted that the memorandum was addressed to all Assistant Solicitors General, indicating a lack of good intention on Corpuz’s part.

The procedural journey of the case involved several stages:

• The City Prosecutor’s Office approved the Resolution finding probable cause.
• An Information for libel was filed against Corpuz in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City.
• Corpuz’s appeal was denied by the NCR Regional Prosecutor/Chief State Prosecutor.
• Her motion for reconsideration was also denied.
• Corpuz appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which denied the appeal.
• Corpuz then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that Corpuz failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. The CA also stated that Corpuz’s arguments regarding privileged communication and lack of malice were matters of defense to be discussed during trial. According to the CA, “finding no grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents, the Petition is DENIED.”

The Supreme Court, in its decision, upheld the findings of the lower courts. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such cases. As the Supreme Court stated:

“Judicial review is allowed only where respondent has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion.”

The Court also reiterated the definition of probable cause: “Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof.”

Regarding the defense of privileged communication, the Court stated that it is “essentially evidentiary in nature and a matter of defense that must be presented and heard during the trial of the criminal case.”

Practical Implications: Navigating Communication with Caution

This case underscores the importance of careful communication, especially in professional settings. While freedom of expression is a cornerstone of Philippine law, it is not absolute. Statements that could be construed as defamatory should be carefully considered, and the context in which they are made is crucial.

For businesses and organizations, it’s essential to establish clear communication protocols and guidelines. Employees should be trained on how to express concerns or criticisms constructively and without resorting to potentially libelous language. Internal communications, even those intended to be private, can become the subject of legal scrutiny.

Key Lessons

• Exercise Caution in Communications: Be mindful of the potential impact of your words, especially when criticizing or raising concerns about others.
• Understand Privileged Communication: Familiarize yourself with the concept of privileged communication and how it applies in different contexts.
• Seek Legal Advice: If you are unsure whether a statement could be considered libelous, consult with a lawyer before making it.
• Document Everything: Maintain records of communications, especially those that could be subject to misinterpretation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between libel and slander?

Libel is defamation in written form (e.g., in a newspaper, book, or online post), while slander is defamation in spoken form.

What is the meaning of “palabra de honor”?

“Palabra de honor” is a Spanish phrase meaning “word of honor.” In the Philippines, it implies a person’s integrity and commitment to their promises.

What constitutes “publication” in libel cases?

Publication means communicating the defamatory statement to someone other than the person being defamed. Even sending a defamatory email to multiple recipients can constitute publication.

How does the defense of “privileged communication” work?

The defense of privileged communication protects statements made in certain contexts, such as in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty. However, the privilege can be lost if the statement is made with actual malice.

What is “grave abuse of discretion”?

Grave abuse of discretion exists when there is an arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; or a whimsical, arbitrary or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law.

What happens if I am accused of libel?

If you are accused of libel, it is crucial to seek legal counsel immediately. A lawyer can help you understand your rights and defenses, and represent you in court.

How can I avoid being sued for libel?

Avoid making false or defamatory statements about others. Always verify your information before publishing it, and be mindful of the potential impact of your words.

ASG Law specializes in defamation and media law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.