This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The purposes of criminalizing libel come to better light when we review its history. This court has had the opportunity to trace its historical development. Guingguing v. Court of Appeals[195] narrated:Originally, the truth of a defamatory imputation was not considered a defense in the prosecution for libel. In the landmark opinion of England's Star Chamber in the Libelis Famosis case in 1603, two major propositions in the prosecution of defamatory remarks were established: first, that libel against a public person is a greater offense than one directed against an ordinary man, and second, that it is immaterial that the libel be true. These propositions were due to the fact that the law of defamatory libel was developed under the common law to help government protect itself from criticism and to provide an outlet for individuals to defend their honor and reputation so they would not resort to taking the law into their own hands. | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The massive unpopularity of the Alien and Sedition Acts contributed to the electoral defeat of President Adams in 1800. In his stead was elected Thomas Jefferson, a man who once famously opined, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."[196] | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| This court has adopted the American case of Garrison v. Louisiana, albeit qualifiedly, in recognizing that there is an "international trend in diminishing the scope, if not the viability, of criminal libel prosecutions."[216] Garrison struck down the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute and held that the statute incorporated constitutionally invalid standards when it came to criticizing or commenting on the official conduct of public officials. | |||||
|
2006-09-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, libel is defined as "a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, 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." Its elements are as follows: (a) an imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) the existence of malice.[19] Thus, for an imputation to be libelous, it must be defamatory, malicious, published, and the victim is identifiable.[20] | |||||
|
2006-06-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In what seems to be providential for petitioner, the Court rendered a decision[15] in G.R. No. 128959 on September 30, 2005, acquitting Guingguing of the charge of libel. The Court quotes the pertinent portions of the Decision, viz.: As it has been established that complainant was a public figure, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove actual malice on the part of Lim and petitioner when the latter published the article subject matter of the complaint. Set otherwise, the prosecution must have established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants knew the statements in the advertisement was false or nonetheless proceeded with reckless disregard as to publish it whether or not it was true. | |||||