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...