ERWIN TULFO Vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES and ATTY. CARLOS T. SO, G.R. No.
161032; and the accompanying case: SUSAN
CAMBRI, REY SALAO, JOCELYN BARLIZO, and PHILIP PICHAY
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and CARLOS SO, G.R. No. 161176, September 16, 2008
“x x x.
Under Art. 360 of the RPC, as Tulfo, the author of the
subject articles, has been found guilty of libel, so too must Cambri, Salao,
Barlizo, and Pichay.
Though we find petitioners guilty of the crime charged, the
punishment must still be tempered with justice.Petitioners are to be punished
for libel for the first time. They did not apply for probation to avoid
service of sentence possibly in the belief that they have not committed any crime. In Buatis,
Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 1409,
March , 2006, 485 SCRA 275, the Court, in a criminal case for libel,
removed the penalty of imprisonment and instead imposed a fine as
penalty. In Sazon v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 120715, March 29, 1996, 255 SCRA 692, the accused was
merely fined in lieu of the original penalty of imprisonment and
fine. Freedom of expression as well as freedom of the press may not be
unrestrained, but neither must it be reined in too harshly. In light of
this, considering the necessity of a free press balanced with the necessity of
a responsible press, the penalty of a fine of PhP 6,000 for each count of libel,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, should suffice. (Administrative Circular No. 08-2008.
See Fermin v. People, G.R.
No. 157643, March 28, 2008). Lastly, the responsibilities of the members of
the press notwithstanding, the difficulties and hazards they encounter in their
line of work must also be taken into consideration.
The award of damages by the lower court must be
modified. Art. 2199 of the Civil Code provides, Except as provided by law
or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is
referred to as actual or compensatory damages. There was no showing of any
pecuniary loss suffered by the complainant Atty. So. Without proof of
actual loss that can be measured, the award of actual damages cannot stand.
In Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 1045676, January 20, 1995, 0
SCRA 348, 356-357, it was held, as regards actual and moral damages:
A party is entitled to an adequate
compensation for such pecuniary loss actually suffered by him as he has duly
proved. Such damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of
proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of
certainty. We have emphasized that these damages cannot be presumed, and
courts, in making an award must point out specific facts which could afford a
basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne.
Moral damages, upon the other
hand, may be awarded to compensate one for manifold injuries such as physical
suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings and social humiliation. These damages must be understood to be in
the concept of grants, not punitive or corrective in nature, calculated to
compensate the claimant for the injury suffered. Although incapable of
exactness and no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral
damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the sound
discretion of the court, it is imperative, nevertheless, that (1) injury must
have been suffered by the claimant, and (2) such injury must have sprung from
any of the cases expressed in Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil
Code. A causal relation, in fine, must exist between the act or omission
referred to in the Code which underlies, or gives rise to, the case or
proceeding on the one hand, and the resulting injury, on the other hand; i.e.
the first must be the proximate cause and the latter the direct consequence
thereof.
It was the articles of Tulfo that caused injury to Atty. So,
and for that Atty. So deserves the award of moral damages. Justification
for the award of moral damages is found in Art. 2219(7) of the Civil Code,
which states that moral damages may be recovered in cases of libel, slander, or
any other form of defamation. As the cases involved are criminal cases of
libel, they fall squarely within the ambit of Art. 2219(7).
Moral damages can be awarded even in the absence of actual
or compensatory damages. The fact that no actual or compensatory damage
was proven before the trial court does not adversely affect the offended partys
right to recover moral damages. (Patricio v. Leviste,
G.R. No. 51832, April 26, 1989, 172 SCRA 774, 781).
X x x.”
