Danguilan-Vitug v. Cojuangco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Marites Danguilan-Vitug published an article titled "Why Cory is Soft on Her Relatives" in Focus: A Chronicle Magazine. The article discussed complaints made by Zamboanga City traders to President Corazon Aquino regarding her sister-in-law, Margarita Cojuangco, referring to her as the "barter trade queen." It also noted the President's dilemma in addressing allegations against her sister-in-law and other officials, contrasting it with the dismissal of other officials based on less evidence. The article suggested the President maintained distance from Cojuangco, which was perceived as insufficient by the public seeking due process. Procedural History: Margarita Cojuangco filed a libel complaint against petitioner. Following a preliminary investigation, an information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Petitioner sought a review from the Department of Justice, which initially dismissed the charge, but later reversed its decision upon motion by Cojuangco, sustaining the filing of the information. Petitioner then filed a Motion to Quash the information before the RTC, arguing the article was privileged opinion and lacked malice, and that the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion. The RTC denied the motion, deeming the grounds as matters of defense. Petitioner's subsequent special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals was also dismissed. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to overturn the Court of Appeals' dismissal. Petitioner argues that the disputed article is a non-defamatory expression of opinion on a matter of public interest, based on true facts, and written without actual malice. Additionally, petitioner contends that the Department of Justice violated her right to non-discriminatory enforcement of penal laws. Intervenors, journalists De Jesus et al., also filed a brief arguing that presumptions of malice and falsity in libel prosecutions concerning matters of public concern abridge freedom of expression and the right to information, and violate the presumption of innocence. They also assert the article is not defamatory. The core issue is whether the denial of the motion to quash was proper.
Issue(s)
Whether the allegedly privileged nature of the communication is a ground for quashing the information. Whether the prosecutors had the authority to file the information, considering the DOJ's reversal of its prior resolution. Whether the article is defamatory and written with actual malice. Whether the Department of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing its prior resolution.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The motion for contempt filed by respondent against Rina Jimenez-David is also DENIED. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Likewise, the motion for contempt filed by respondent against Rina Jimenez-David is DENIED on the same ground. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the denial of the Motion to Quash: The Court held that the grounds cited by the petitioner in her Motion to Quash, namely, that the article was absolutely privileged and that there was no actual malice, are matters of defense that must be proven during the trial. Section 3(g), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court allows a motion to quash if the averments, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification. However, for the alleged privilege to be a ground for quashing, it should have been averred in the information itself and the privilege should be absolute, not merely qualified. In cases of qualifiedly privileged communications, the defamatory communication is simply presumed to be not malicious, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove malice. Therefore, quashal is not proper, especially when the prosecution opposes it, to afford the prosecution its day in court. The Court cited People v. Gomez, which held that the claim of privileged communication is a matter of defense, not a ground for a motion to quash. On the alleged lack of authority of the officers who filed the information: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of Justice in reversing the dismissal of the charge for libel. The resolution did not reveal any abuse of discretion that would deprive the Secretary of Justice of his authority to sustain the filing of the information against the petitioner. Therefore, the prosecutors had the authority to file the information. On whether the article is defamatory and written with actual malice: These are factual issues that require adequate proof and proper appreciation by the trial court. They cannot be passed upon through mere arguments in a motion to quash or in a petition for certiorari. The Court reiterated that the claims of the petitioner regarding the non-defamatory nature of the article, its basis on true facts, and the absence of malice are matters that need to be proven during the trial on the merits. On the motion for contempt: The Court denied the motion for contempt filed by Margarita Cojuangco against Rina Jimenez-David. The article written by Jimenez-David was found not to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. It merely restated the history of the case and reiterated arguments previously raised by journalists. The Court distinguished this case from instances where publications clearly intended to influence court proceedings or cast doubt on the integrity of the court. Jimenez-David's article was considered a mere criticism of the existing libel law and did not present a clear and present danger or a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
The alleged privileged nature of a communication and the absence of malice are matters of defense that must be proven during the trial and are not proper grounds for a motion to quash an information, unless the privilege is absolute and averred in the information itself.