Spouses Webb v. Secretary of Justice
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, spouses Freddie and Elizabeth Webb and their children, filed a Joint Affidavit-Complaint against the members of the Board of Directors of Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI), its publisher, editor-in-chief, managing editor, news editor, assistant news editor, city editor, circulation editor, and reporters. The complaint alleged the publication of seven "false and defamatory news articles implicating petitioners in the Vizconde rape slay case and the purported 'cover-up' thereof." Procedural History: The Makati City Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the complaint against the PDI Board members, citing Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code which specifies who are responsible for libel. However, it found probable cause for libel against other respondents (Yambot, Jimenez-Magsanoc, Nolasco, Engracia, Paurom, Bandayrel, Lardizabal, and Herrera, and Jumilla). Upon petition for review, the Secretary of Justice affirmed the dismissal against the Board members and reversed the finding of probable cause against the other respondents, directing the withdrawal of the informations. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners' petition for certiorari for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being filed beyond the reglementary period. Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaints for libel. Whether the news reports constitute qualifiedly privileged communications. Whether the absence of malice and the availability of privilege are grounds for dismissal at the preliminary investigation stage.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari by the Court of Appeals: The Court affirmed that the petition for certiorari before the appellate court was filed beyond the reglementary period prescribed by Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. While the rule was amended during the pendency of the case, the original rule was in force at the time of filing. The Court noted that even if the petition were to be resolved on the merits, the outcome would be the same. The Court took cognizance of the case to resolve the merits directly, as directing the appellate court to do so would unduly prolong its disposition. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Justice: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of Justice in affirming the dismissal of the complaint against the respondent-members of the PDI Board of Directors. The records did not show prima facie evidence that these members actually caused or participated in the publication, or were directly responsible for the writing, editing, or publishing of the alleged libelous articles. The Court reiterated that decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the Secretary of Justice, who exercises control and supervision and has the power of review. On the nature of the news reports as qualifiedly privileged communication: The Court did not directly rule on whether the news reports were qualifiedly privileged communications in this decision, as the primary issue revolved around procedural matters and the scope of review of the Secretary of Justice's resolution. However, the Secretary of Justice had characterized them as such. The petitioners argued that the Secretary of Justice assumed this without proof and that the elements for qualifiedly privileged communications were not met, thus negating the presumption of malice. The Court's focus remained on the procedural correctness of the dismissal and the extent of its own review powers. On the dismissal at the preliminary investigation stage: The Court clarified that while the absence of malice and the availability of privilege are defenses that must be proved at trial, the Secretary of Justice's role in reviewing preliminary investigations involves determining if probable cause exists. The Court's review is limited to whether such determination was made without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the Secretary of Justice's affirmance of the dismissal against the Board members was not attended with grave abuse of discretion, and the issue of probable cause against the other respondents was also reviewed within the Secretary's authority.
Main Doctrine
The determination of probable cause is generally not lodged with the Supreme Court; its duty is confined to reviewing whether the executive or judicial determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Once an Information is filed, the Regional Trial Court becomes the final arbiter on whether to proceed with the case.