Banal v. Panganiban
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Ma. Teresa G. Winternitz, Cristina G. Feibel, and Raquel L. Gonzalez, officers of Welbilt Construction Corporation and Wack Wack Condominium Corporation, filed a complaint against petitioner Conrado R. Banal III for libel due to his articles "House of the Rising Sun" and "Heist Cold Beer!" published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Procedural History: Six informations for libel were filed against petitioner. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the informations failed to allege the actual residence of the complainant or the place where the libelous article was printed and first published. The RTC granted the motion, dismissing the cases. Respondents moved for reconsideration and to amend the informations, arguing the defect was formal. The RTC granted the amendment. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Petition: The present petition for review on certiorari assails the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in recalling its order of dismissal and allowing the amendment of the informations.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of criminal informations for libel to allege the place where the offended parties actually reside at the time of the commission of the offenses or the place where the allegedly libelous publications were printed and first published is a sufficient ground for the quashal of the criminal informations. Whether an amendment to the criminal informations that will confer jurisdiction upon the trial court (that earlier ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the offenses charged) is a substantial amendment that is not allowed after the accused had been arraigned. Whether the respondent trial court that has earlier ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the offenses charged has authority to grant leave to amend the criminal informations, which amendments seek to confer upon the respondent trial court jurisdiction over the offenses charged.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The October 15, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73017 and its March 17, 2005 Resolution are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of allegations for jurisdiction: The Court held that Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code requires that libel actions be filed in the court of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides. The original information stated that the newspaper "is published in English in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and of general circulation in the Philippines and abroad." This allegation, indicating publication in Makati City, was deemed sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Makati City. The Court clarified that while the specific phrase "printed and first published" is ideal, the substance of the allegation indicating publication within the court's territorial jurisdiction is paramount. On whether the amendment was formal or substantial: The Court ruled that the amendment, which stated that "the libelous article above-quoted was printed and first published in the City of Makati, more particularly at 3817 Mascardo street, Makati City and/or at 1098 Chino Roces Avenue (formerly Pasong Tamo) corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City," was a formal amendment. It merely added specifications to eliminate vagueness and stated with additional precision something already contained in the original information, without introducing new material facts. The test applied was whether the defense would be prejudiced or if the amendment changed the nature of the crime, exposed the accused to a higher penalty, affected the essence of the offense, caused surprise, or deprived the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment. Since none of these were present, the amendment was considered formal. On the authority of the trial court to allow amendment: The Court found that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in recalling its earlier order and allowing the formal amendment. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the trial court acted within its authority by allowing a formal amendment to clarify jurisdictional facts, which was in accordance with law and prevailing jurisprudence. The amendment sought to correct a perceived defect that did not fundamentally alter the charge or prejudice the accused's defense, thus falling within the court's power to ensure a just and orderly proceeding.
Main Doctrine
The allegation that a newspaper is published in a city is sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the court of that city for libel cases, and an amendment clarifying that the libelous article was printed and first published there is a formal amendment, allowable even after arraignment, as it does not alter the nature of the offense or prejudice the accused.