Proof of Truth

Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.

Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.

In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

When proof of truth is admissible

Proof of truth is admissible in any of the following:

1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party is a private individual or a public officer

2. When the offended party is a Government employee, even if the act or omission imputed does not constitute a crime, provided, it is related to the discharge of his official duties.

May evidence proving truthfulness of the imputation be received?

No. Evidence proving the imputation is objectionable because such is inadmissible. Two exceptions:

1. Imputation of a crime against any person. But the mere fact that the truth is proved, the accused must further show that he acted out of good motives and justifiable end. Truth alone is not enough. In all other cases, truth is not a defense at all.

2. Imputation against a public officer and the same relates to his public function. The offender may adduce evidence of the truth of such imputation. 

Example of No. 2

•  “A” stated in the presence of some people that “B,” a government official was in the habit of drinking intoxicating liquor during office hours and that he was always in a boisterous condition. In case “B” should file a complaint against “A” for defamation, the latter can prove the truth of the charge.

•   Both public interest and the good of the service demand that a drunkard be barred from the service.

•   Defamatory remarks against government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel if defendant proves the truth of the imputation.

•  But when the imputation involved the private life of a government employee which is not related to the discharge of his official duties, the offender can not prove the truth thereof.

“In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted”

•  The 3rd  paragraph of Article 361 must have reference to the 2 cases referred to in the 2nd paragraph where proof of the truth may be admitted, namely:

1. if the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime; and
2. if the imputation not constituting a crime is made against a Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their duties.

•  The question may arise whether or not it is necessary to show that the accused who proved the truth of the imputation published it with good motives and for justifiable ends in order that he may be acquitted.

•  It is believed that since the accused did the public service, proof of his good motives and justifiable ends is not necessary.  -- ????????

Proof of truth

•   The proof of truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest upon mere hearsay, rumors or suspicion.

•   It may rest upon positive, direct evidence upon which a definite finding may be made by the Court.

•   But probable cause for belief in the truth of the statement is sufficient.

When evidence of the truth of imputation not admissible

Illustration

•  “A” stated before several persons that “B”, a private individual, is a drunkard or is suffering from contagious disease. In case “A” is prosecuted for defamation, he will not be allowed to prove the truth that “B” was really a drunkard or suffering from some communicable disease. 

Three requisites of defense in defamation

 •  Proof of the truth is not enough, it is also required that the matter charged as libelous was published with good motives and for justifiable ends.

1.  If it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true

-  The proof of the truth in defamation is limited only 

1.  to act or omission constituting a crime  and 
2.  to act or omission of a public officer which, although not constituting a crime, is related to the discharge of duties.

2.  It was published with good motives

- Whether or not good motives exist is a question to be determined by the court by taking into consideration not only the intention of the author of the defamatory matter but all other circumstances of each particular case.

3.   And for justifiable means

“With good intention and justifiable motives”

-  “A”, a nurse, was treating a patient suffering from gonorrhea. She believed that the patient had been contaminated by her husband. When the husband came to the house, “A” said “This is the result of your foolishness, you contaminated your wife.” This remark was made upstairs within the hearing of several persons.

-  Held: The statement concerning the cause of the sickness of the patient was done in private and only as a precautionary measure to prevent further contamination. Even if it was overheard by other persons, it was not motivated by malice on the part of “A.” There was no showing that she was inspired by any feeling of spite or ill-will towards the complainant.

- An imputation that a person has contagious disease might, in ordinary circumstances, be defamatory, but loses such character when made with good intention and justifiable motive.

Good motives and justifiable ends constitute a defense insofar as they negative malice. There is no liable if there is no malice.

Retraction may mitigate the damages

• In order to have the desired effect, the retraction should contain an admission of the falsity of the libelous publication and evince a desire to repair the wrong occasioned thereby.

That the publication of the article was an honest mistake is not a complete defense but serves only to mitigate damages where the article is libelous per se.

Source: 

Leonor D. Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2004 ed.

Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II, 2001 ed. 

read more...

Libelous Remarks

Art. 362. Libelous remarks. — Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under the provisions of Article 354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability.

Libelous remarks or comments on matters privileged, if made with malice in fact, do not exempt the author and editor.

Liability of newspaper reporter for distorting facts connected with official proceedings

• The reporter of a newspaper publication, in publishing what passes in a court of justice, must publish the whole case, and not merely state the conclusion which he himself draws from the evidence.

• The author or the editor of a publication who distorts, mutilates or discolors the official proceedings reported by him, or add comments thereon to cast aspersion on the character of the parties concerned, is guilty of libel, notwithstanding the fact that the defamatory matter is published in connection with a privileged matter.

read more...

Incriminating Innocent Person

What are the felonies under incriminatory machination?

1.   Incriminating innocent person

2.   Intriguing against honor

Art. 363. Incriminating innocent person. — Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly  incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime, shall be punished by arresto menor.

ELEMENTS

1.   That the offender performs an act

2.   That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime

3.   That such act does not constitute perjury

How committed

Planting of evidence or incriminating innocent person is committed by performing an act by which the offender directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime. 

Planting evidence

This article is limited to “planting” evidence and the like which do not in themselves constitute false prosecution but tend directly to cause false prosecution.

• “A” taking advantage of the fact that “B” was in the toilet while his (B’s) coat was hanging on the back of the chair, placed a small bottled of opium in the pocket of the coat. Then “A” called a policeman and told the latter that “B” had a bottle of opium in his pocket. NOTE: “A” performed an act by putting in “B’s” pocket a bottle of opium, This is called “planting evidence.”

• A person took the wallet from the pants of a person and put it into the pocket of another. - Incriminating innocent person by planting evidence because the imputation is that the latter committed theft.

False accusation is defamatory or perjury under the RPC

• Under the RPC, one who false accuses another of a crime may be held liable whether for libel or perjury, depending upon the manner or form in which the act is committed. 

Complex crime of incriminating innocent person through unlawful arrest

• There is a complex crime of incriminating an innocent person through unlawful arrest, by which the two offenses form a complex crime, which is only one crime.

Incriminating an Innocent Person	Perjury by False Accusation
Committed by performing an act by which the offender directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime.	The gravamen of the offense is the imputation itself, falsely made, before an officer.
Limited to the act of planting evidence and the like, in order to incriminate an innocent person.	The giving of false statement under oath or the making  of  a  false  affidavit,  imputing  to  a person the commission of a crime.

Incriminatory Machination	Defamation
The offender does not avail himself of written or spoken words in besmirching the victim’s reputation,   as   would   be   in   the   case   of defamation.	The imputation made by the offender must be public and  malicious,  and,  besides,  must  be calculated to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the aggrieved party.

Source:

Leonor D. Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2004 ed.

Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II, 2001 ed. 

read more...

Intriguing against Honor

Art. 364. Intriguing against honor. — The penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed for any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of a person.

How is intriguing against honor committed?

Committed by a person who shall make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of another person.

Intriguing against honor is any scheme or plot by means consist of some trickery. It is akin to slander by deed, in that the offender does not avail directly of written or spoken words, pictures or caricatures to ridicule his victim but of some ingenious, crafty and secret plot, producing the same effect.

● Why are you going with her? Masamang tao yan. All her neighbors are enemies. Maraming asunto sya. Held: Defamation is defined as "a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, mission, 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 (Art. 353) Having this in mind, we hold that the case is one of defamation and not that of intriguing against honor.

Incriminating an Innocent Person	Intriguing Against Honor
The  offender  performs  an  act  by  which  he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime.	The  offender  makes any    intrigue  for  the purpose of blemishing the honor or reputation of another person.

Intriguing against Honor

Defamation

The source or author of the derogatory information is unknown and the offender appears to be repeating only what he heard others say.  The offender does not really want to assume responsibility for the statement but imputes it to another from whom he learned the statement.

Where the source of  the information can be pinpointed  and definitely determined, and  the person  passes  the  same   to  another  for  the purpose of causing dishonor to complainant’s reputation. Public and malicious imputation  of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real  or imaginary,  or any act, mission, 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.

read more...

When to File Responsive Pleading

RULE 11

SEC. 1. Answer to the complaint.—The defendant shall file his answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court. 

SEC. 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private juridical entity.—Where the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity and service of summons is made on the government official designated by law to receive the same, the answer shall be filed within thirty (30) days after receipt of summons by such entity.

SEC. 3. Answer to amended complaint.—Where the plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the same within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy thereof.

Where its filing is not a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the amended complaint within ten (10) days from notice of the Order admitting the same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the amended complaint, if no new answer is filed.

This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended counterclaim, amended cross-claim, amended third (fourth, etc.)—party complaint, and amended complaint-in-intervention. 

SEC. 4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim.—A counter­claim or cross-claim must be answered within ten (10) days from service. 

SEC. 5. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)—party complaint.— The time to answer a third (fourth, etc.)—party complaint shall be governed by the same rule as the answer to the complaint. 

SEC. 6. Reply.—A reply may be filed within ten (10) days from service of the pleading responded to. 

SEC. 7. Answer to supplemental complaint.—A supplemental complaint may be answered within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. The answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed. 

SEC. 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim.--A compulsory, counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party has at the time he files his answer shall be contained therein. 

SEC. 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer.— A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his pleading may, with the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by supplemental pleading before judgment. 

SEC. 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim.—When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment. 

SEC. 11. Extension of time to plead.—Upon motion and on such terms as may be just, the court may extend the time to plead provided in these Rules.

The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules. 

* * * * * *

ANSWER TO THE -

1. Complaint 

    a. natural person - 15 days from service of summons, UNLESS a different period is fixed by the court

    b. foreign private juridical entity -

           i. 15 days - if it has a resident agent

           ii. 30 days - if no resident agent 

2. Amended Complaint

    a. as a matter of right - 15 days from service

    b. not a matter of right - 10 days from notice of the order 

3. Counterclaim or cross-claim - 10 days from service

4. Third (fourth, etc.)-party Complaint - 15 days from service of summons, UNLESS a different period is fixed by the court

5. Reply - 10 days from service 

6. Supplemental Complaint - 10 days from notice of the order 

7. Counterclaim or cross-claim after answer - before judgment

8. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim - before judgment

9. Complaint-in-Intervention - 15 days from notice of the order admitting it

10. Bill of particulars - 10 days from notice of the order 

Within 10 days

1. Amended Complaint, not as a matter or right 

2. Counterclaim 

3. Cross-claim

4. Reply 

5. Supplemental Complaint

6. Bill of Particulars

Within 15 days

1. Answer to the Complaint

2. Answer to the Third (fourth)-party complaint

3. Answer to the Complaint-in-Intervention

Within 30 days

1. Answer to the Complaint, defendant is a foreign private juridical entity

Before Judgment

1. Counterclaim or cross-claim after answer

2. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim

Balance of 15-day period but not less than 5 days

In a case of a complaint which was the subject of a motion to dismiss which was denied, the defendant has a period representing the balance of the original period he has to answer. But in no event should the period be less than five (5) days.

In the case of a bill of particulars, the defendant whose motion for bill of particulars was denied or where the bill of particulars was granted, the period within which the defendant must file the answer would be the balance of the 15-day period within which he should have filed the answer but in no event less than five (5) days.

Can defendant be declared in default if he fails to file a new Answer or supplemental answer to the supplemental complaint?

No. The ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT shall serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new answer or supplemental answer is filed. 

May the court shorten the term to file an answer?

No. The granting of additional time to the defendant to file an answer is a matter largely addressed to the sound discretion of the court. They may extend the time to file the pleadings but may not shorten them.

read more...

Truth in Lending Act

What is the Truth in Lending Act (Republic Act No. 3765)?

TILA is a law which requires creditors to make a full disclosure of the credit cost to the person to whom the credit is extended.

What is the policy of the State in passing the law?

To protect the people from lack of awareness of the true cost of credit to the user by assuring a full disclosure of such cost with a view of preventing the uninformed use of credit to the detriment of the national economy

What entity shall take charge of implementing the Truth in Lending Act?

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas through its Monetary Board

What are the PURPOSES of the TILA

1.  To protect debtors from the effects of misrepresentation and concealment;

2.  To permit them to fully appreciate and evaluate the true cost of their borrowing.

Who are covered under the Truth in Lending Act?

The law covers any CREDITOR, which is defined as any person engaged in the business of extending credit (including any person who as a regular business practice make loans or sells or rents property or services on a time, credit, or installment basis, either as principal or as agent) who requires as an incident to the extension of credit, the payment of a finance charge.

What are the obligations of the creditor?

A creditor or lender shall furnish the debtor or borrower, prior to the consummation/perfection of the sale or loan, written statement containing the following:

1.  cash price or amount of money received by the debtor;

2.  amount credited as down payment;

3   balance of the cash price;

4.  non-finance charges advanced by the creditor or lender;

5.  total amount to be financed;

6.  finance charges in pesos;

7.  percentage of finance charge to the total amount to be financed

What transactions are covered by the TILA?

1. Loans of money;

2. Sale on installment of property and allied transactions.

Credit transactions within the scope of TILA

For the purpose of Truth in Lending Act, what does the term credit include?

The term credit includes and/or means:

1. Any loan, mortgage, deed of trust, advance or discount;

2. Conditional sales contract;

3. Any contract to sell, or sale or contract of sale of property of services, either for present or future delivery, under which part or all of the price is payable subsequent to the making of such sale or contract;

4. Any rental-purchase contract;

5. Any contract or arrangement for the hire, bailment or leasing of property;

6. Any option, demand, lien, pledge or other claim against or for delivery of property or money;

7. Any purchase or other acquisition of, or any credit upon the security of, any obligation or claim arising out of any of the foregoing and any transaction or series of transactions having a similar purpose or effect.

Credit transactions outside the scope of TILA

1. Those that do not involve the payment of any finance charge

2. Those which the debtor is the one specifying a definite and fixed set of credit terms such as bank deposits, insurance contracts, sale of bonds, etc.

Finance Charges – amounts to be paid by the debtor incident to the extension of credit such as interest, discounts, collection fees, credit investigation fees and attorney’s fees

Non-finance Charges – amounts advanced by the creditor for items normally associated with the ownership of property of the availment of the services purchased which are not incident to the extension of credit. For example, when a debtor purchases a car on credit, the creditor may advance the insurance premium as well as the registration fee for the account of the debtor.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with obligation?

1. Non-compliance with law does not affect the validity or enforceability of the contract itself.

2. Would authorize the debtor to recover any interest payment made.

3. Makes the creditor liable for double finance charges plus attorney’s fees.

What are the remedies of debtor in case of violation?

1.  Debtor could refuse payment of finance charges

2. If charges have already been paid, he could sue to recover the penalty prescribed by law, i.e., P100 or an amount equal to twice the finance charge required by the creditor in connection with such transaction, whichever is greater, except that such penalty shall not exceed P2,000.00 on any credit transaction.

3. Debtor may initiate criminal proceedings against the creditor.

Prescription

Civil action must be brought within 1 year from the date of the occurrence of violation

What are the penalties in case of violation?

1. Any creditor who violates the law is liable in the amount of P100 or in an amount equal to twice the finance charged required by such creditor in connection with such transaction, whichever is the greater, except that such liability shall not exceed P2,000 on any credit transaction. The action must be brought within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.

2. The creditor is also liable for reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs as determined by the court.

3. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this law or any regulation issued thereunder shall be fined by not less than P1,00 or more than P5,000 or imprisonment of not less than 6 months, nor more than one year or both.

However, no punishment or penalty under this law shall apply to the Philippine Government or any agency or any political subdivision thereof.

Are banking institutions covered by the disclo­sure requirement of the Truth in Lending Act?

Yes. Banks and non-bank financial intermediaries authorized to engage in quasi-banking functions are required to strictly adhere to the provisions of the "Truth in Lending Act" and shall make the true and effective cost of borrowing an integral part of every loan contract." However, this disclosure require­ment is not applicable to bank deposits and insurance contracts.

SC RULING:

While banks are authorized by Central Bank Circular No. 504 to collect handling charges on loans, the same Circular requires banks to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Truth in Lending Act such that if the promissory note signed by the borrower does not contain a stipulation on the payment of handling charges, the bank cannot charge and collect such handling charges from the borrower [Consolidated Bank vs. CA, 246 SCRA 193, (1995)]

BAR QUESTION:

Q: Dana Gianina purchased on a 36-month install­ment basis the latest model of the Nissan Sentra sedan car from the Jobel Cars, Inc. In addition to the advertised selling price, the latter imposed finance charges consisting of inter­ests, fees and service charges. It did not, however, submit to Dana a written statement setting forth therein the information required by the Truth in Lending Act (RA No. 3765). Neverthe­less, the conditional deed of sale which the parties executed mentioned that the total amount indicated therein included such finance charges. 

(a) Has there been substantial compli­ance of the aforesaid act? 

(b) If your answer in the foregoing question is in the negative, what is the effect of the violation of the contract? 

(c) In the event of violation of the Act, what remedies may be availed of by Dana? (BAR Q.-1991).

Answer:

A. There is no substantial compliance of the law be­cause the disclosure requirements must be made in writing speci­fying the matters mentioned in Sec. 4, RA No. 3765. The amount reflected in the deed of sale is never considered the statement required under that law.

B. Non-compliance of that written disclosure does not however affect the validity of sale.

C. Because of that violation Dana may avail the following remedies: (1) A civil action may be instituted by Dana against Jobel Cars Inc. for its failure to make a disclosure and such car corporation is liable in the amount of P100.00 or in an amount equal to twice the finance - charge required by the creditor, whichever is greater, but the liability should not be in excess of P2,000.00. Dana may also collect attorney's fees and cost. (2) A criminal action may be instituted. In case of conviction, the creditor shall be fined not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00 or imprisoned for not less than six months nor more than one year or both.

read more...