The vast reach and infinite potential of the internet is beyond dispute. Indeed, the easy transfer of information over the internet on real time basis and through territorial jurisdictions has opened great possibilities, both in terms of opportunities and problems. If you consider the huge amount of content written about almost everyone in the internet, it will not be long before someone gets really pissed and files a case for libel. In fact, there are already pending cases.
In the Philippines, the multiple publication rule applies. It means that if a single defamatory statement is published several times, it gives rise to as many offenses as there are publications.
In Philippine jurisdiction, the truth is not always a defense. While something is true, if the purpose is to besmirch, then liability still exists. To be liable for libel, the following elements must be shown to exist: (1) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (2) publication of the charge; (3) identity of the person defamed; and (4) existence of malice.
As a rule, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if true, if no good intention and justifiable motive is shown (Art. 354, RPC). As an exception, the presumption of malice does not apply in privileged communication, which may be absolute or conditional.
Absolutely privileged communications is one wherein no liability, even if its author acted in bad faith. This class includes statements made by members of Congress in the discharge of their functions as such, official communications made by public officers in the performance of their duties, and allegations or statements made by the parties or their counsel in their pleadings or motions or during the hearing of judicial proceedings, as well as the answers given by witnesses in reply to questions propounded to them, in the course of said proceedings, provided that said allegations or statements are relevant to the issues, and the answers are responsive or pertinent to the questions propounded to said witnesses.
Conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communications are those which, although containing defamatory imputations, would not be actionable unless made with malice or bad faith. Conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communications are those mentioned in Article 354 of the RPC:
1. A private communication made by a person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty. The following requisites, however, must exist: (a) the person who made the communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the one to whom it is made; (b) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and (c) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice.
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
The fact that a communication is privileged does not mean that it is not actionable; the privileged character of the communication simply does away with the presumption of malice, and the plaintiff has to prove the fact of malice in such case.
The elements of libel are present
Unfortunately for the respondent, the Investigating Prosecutor found that there is probable cause to charge him, together with the main respondent in the other complaint, with libel. The amount of bail is set at PhP10,000.00 each.
According to the Investigating Prosecutor, the following are the elements of libel:
1. the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;
2. publication of the charge;
3. identity of the person defamed; and
4. existence of malice.
An allegation made by a person against another is considered defamatory if it ascribes to the latter the commission of a crime; the possession of a vice or defect, whether real or imaginary; or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it is true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. Thus, where there is a defamatory imputation, proof of malice is not required as it is incumbent upon the author thereof to demonstrate that such is not malicious and that good intentions and justifiable motives attended the same.
There are, of course, exceptions to the foregoing. Absolutely privileged communications are not actionable. This class includes statements made by members of Congress in the discharge of their functions. Likewise exempted are private communications made by any person to another int he performance of any legal, moral or social duty and a fair and true report, made in good faith, without comments and remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings. Furthermore, where statements relating to the conduct of public officials are involved, malice is not presumed.
In the libel complaints, the individual respondents never denied authorship of the comments, which are manifestly defamatory. Such being the case, it was incumbent upon the respondents to present proof that such are not malicious and that good intentions and justifiable motives attended the same. Apart from their self-serving denials, the respondents failed to present proof that the statements are indeed not as malicious as they appear or that the same were made with good intentions and/or justifiable motives.
In any case, due to the legal presumption of malice, a prima facie case for libel exists against the respondents and whatever defenses they may have in refutation of the same would be best ventilated in a court of law on the occasion of a full-blown trial.
Libel covers matters posted in the internet
One of the defenses raised by the respondent is that libel under the Revised Penal Code does not cover and regulate the internet. According to the Investigating Prosecutor, the crime of libel as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code is broad enough to cover “publication” of malicious and defamatory statements over the internet. Publication has been defined as the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person or persons and the internet is just one among the main media available to all and sundry nowadays for the communication and dissemination of thoughts, words and ideas.
One significant distinction, however, is to be made as to the scope and breadth of the statutory definition of the crime of libel with respect to the personalities who may be held liable for articles or comments made over the internet. Insofar as the worldwide web is concerned, we cannot apply the traditional concept of a publisher of a newspaper or periodical insofar as his/her liability for libel is concerned to all the actors involved in the setting up, ownership, and management or supervision of an internet site, web log (blog) or forum. This matter is discussed in detail below (referring the the part on Abe Olandres).
No comments:
Post a Comment