G.R. NO.
159787, May 25, 2007
OGIE DIAZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
FACTS: A Manila Regional Trial Court found petitioner Ogie Diaz guilty of the crime of libel,
penalized under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, on May 12, 1998, for a December 28,
1991 column he wrote in the tabloid Bandera about the sexual perversions of a certain “Miss S”
with bit actor Philip Henson. Complaining witness Florinda Bagay, with the screen name Patricia
Santillan, felt that she was the woman alluded to in the column as she had had a whirlwind
romance and a daughter with Henson. She said the embarrassment that the column caused her
forced her to stop her studies as a medical technology student. The Court of Appeals sustained
the conviction and denied a motion for reconsideration, hence this petition for review on
certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether the article was libelous
HELD AND RATIO DECIDENDI: NO. Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, penalizing
libel, should be read in relation with Article 355 of the same Code regarding libel in writing. For
an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must be present: (a) it must be defamatory;
(b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable.
Absent one of these elements, a case for libel will not prosper. This case lacked the last element.
The Court found the first and second elements present. In determining whether a statement is
defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their
plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by the persons
reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense. In the
instant case, the words used cast aspersion upon the character, integrity, and reputation of "Miss
S." As to the element of malice, the Court found that since on its face, the article is defamatory,
there is a presumption that the offender acted with malice. In Article 354 of the same Code,
every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention
and justifiable motive for making it is shown. There was neither good reason nor motive why the
subject article was written except to embarrass "Miss S" and injure her reputation. On the
element of publication, there can be no question that the article appeared in the December 28,
1991 issue of Bandera, a local tabloid.
For the last element, in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable,
although it is not necessary that the person be named. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the
allusion is apparent or if the publication contains matters of description or reference to facts and
circumstances from which others reading the article may know the person alluded to, or if the
latter is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that those knowing such person could and
did understand that he was the person referred to. The libelous article, while referring to "Miss
S," does not give a sufficient description or other indications which identify "Miss S." In short,
the article fails to show that "Miss S" and Florinda Bagay are one and the same person.
RULING: The petition was granted and the assailed decision reversed. Petitioner Ogie Diaz was
ACQUITTED of the crime of libel.
