§ bulk

of the evidence.
○ Thus, someone can be civilly liable but not criminally liable (cannot be the
other way around) because of varying degrees of evidence needed
§ OJ Simpson case
□ The glove didn't fit (If the glove don't fit, you must acquit)
□ Litigation lesson: never ask anything you don't know the
answer to.
□ The jury had the mentality that the elements should be
absolutely complied (no doubt, instead of reasonable doubt)
○ In pursuit of due process

Crimes Against Honor - LIBEL There is a curtailment of press freedom if an action for libel were not rigorously
Thursday, 19 October 2017 6:03 PM scrutinized
- US v. Bustos
FREEDOMS OF EXPRESSION YOU CANNOT HAVE ○ Justice Malcom: FOE important in order to remove what is wrong with
gov't
1. Libel ○ Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation
○ Public - Lopez v CA
○ Malicious ○ A public officer must not be too thin-skinned w reference to comment
○ Written (if spoken, slander) upon his official acts
HALE (Law of the Press): Criminal and Civil Aspect ○ Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted
- Libel deprives a person from good reputation ○ Criticism does not authorize defamation
- Good reputation is a thing of value, sometimes more valuable than great riches ○ Nonetheless, Criticism must be born for the common good
- Breach of peace by the person defamed - So long as in good faith, newspapers have the legal right to have and express
- Therefore the state has an interest to address the breach of peace, making it opinions on legal question. To deny them that right would infringe upon the
criminal. (State as the guardian of the public peace) freedom of the press
- Libel is a crime, and as such subjects the offender to a fine or imprisonment - Quisumbing v Lopez
- Criminal - imprisonment ○ Newspapers should be given leeway and tolerance as to enable them to
- Civil - fine or damages courageously and effectively perform their important role in our
- Crimes must be proven beyond reasonable doubt democracy
○ There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a ○ Requirement of good faith and reasonable care - they should not be held
reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is to account for honest mistakes
guilty.
○ If prosecution cannot prove reasonable doubt, defense not even need to Elements of Defamation
present any doubt- presumption of innocence until proven guilty 1. That there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
○ In a Criminal case, degree of reasonable doubt applies imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance
○ Civil case - only a preponderance of evidence 2. That the imputation must be made publicly
§ Who has a better claim/position 3. That is must be malicious
§ bulk of the evidence. 4. That the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person or one who
○ Thus, someone can be civilly liable but not criminally liable (cannot be the is dead
other way around) because of varying degrees of evidence needed 5. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of
§ OJ Simpson case the person defamed.
□ The glove didn't fit (If the glove don't fit, you must acquit)
□ Litigation lesson: never ask anything you don't know the Notes on the 5 Elements:
answer to. 1. The words themselves are not important. What is important is the meaning that
□ The jury had the mentality that the elements should be the words in fact conveyed on the mind of persons of reasonable
absolutely complied (no doubt, instead of reasonable doubt) understanding, taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances which
○ In pursuit of due process were known to the hearer/reader.
a. Where the comments are insincere and intended to ridicule rather than
There is a curtailment of press freedom if an action for libel were not rigorously praise the plaintiff, the publication is libelous. Praise undeserved is
scrutinized slander in disguise (Jimenez v Reyes, 27 Phil 52)
- US v. Bustos b. An expression of an opinion by one affected by the act of another and
○ Justice Malcom: FOE important in order to remove what is wrong with based on actual fact is not libelous (People v. Baja, supra)
gov't c. It doesn’t have to be a lie to be libel, if the intent is to harm someone's
○ Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation reputation even if true, it is libel.
- Lopez v CA
2. If nobody knows, your reputation is kept intact, no crime committed
 is dead c. It is enough to show that there was gross imputation
5. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of 4. *Even corporations
the person defamed. a. Identification of the offended party is required
b. Not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself; it must be
Notes on the 5 Elements: shown that at least a third person could identity him as the object of the
1. The words themselves are not important. What is important is the meaning that libelous publication
the words in fact conveyed on the mind of persons of reasonable c. Defamatory imputation directed at a class or group of person in gen
understanding, taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances which language are not actionable by individuals composing the class or group
were known to the hearer/reader. unless the statements are sweeping
a. Where the comments are insincere and intended to ridicule rather than d. Blind items can be actionable if it is clear who is being referred to in the
praise the plaintiff, the publication is libelous. Praise undeserved is publication
slander in disguise (Jimenez v Reyes, 27 Phil 52)
b. An expression of an opinion by one affected by the act of another and 5. -
based on actual fact is not libelous (People v. Baja, supra) a. Dishonor - disgrace, shame or ignominy
c. It doesn’t have to be a lie to be libel, if the intent is to harm someone's b. Discredit - loss of credit or reputation; disesteem
reputation even if true, it is libel. c. Contempt -

2. If nobody knows, your reputation is kept intact, no crime committed MUST PROVE EACH ELEMENT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
a. Publication must be proven
b. To some third person/s Art. 354 - Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious (even if true)
c. Examples: Exceptions:
i. Delivery to typesetter is sufficient publication (US v Crane) 1. Private communication made by any person to another in the performance of
ii. Sending to the wide, a letter defamatory of her husband. (US v any legal, moral or social duty (rebutted by evidence of malice in fact or if there
Ubinanana) is no reasonable ground to believe that the charge is true)
iii. Sending a letter in an unsealed letter through a messenger Requisites for Privileged Communication
(opportunity to read is enough - does not constitute "private i. That the person who made the communication had a duty to make
communication" which is privileged) - (Lopez v Delgado) Sending a the communication (or at least an interest to be upheld)
letter not shown to be sealed is also publication (US v Grino; People ii. Addressed to an officer/board/superior, having some interest or
v Silvela) - burden of proof with the accused, must prove the letter duty in the matter
was sealed. iii. Made in good faith without malice in fact. (Unnecessary publicity
iv. Writing another person about the person defamed (Orfanel v destroys good faith)
People) 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of
d. There is no crime if there is no publication any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential
3. Intent(malice) present nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or
a. Malice in fact of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
i. Proved by ill-will, hatred or purpose to injure 3. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged (Borjol v
b. Malice in law CA ruling)
i. Presumed from a defamatory imputation
c. It is enough to show that there was gross imputation To rebut the presumption of malice, it must be shown:
4. *Even corporations 1. The defamatory imp. Is true, in case the aw allows proof of the truth of the
a. Identification of the offended party is required imputation;
b. Not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself; it must be 2. It is published w good intention;
shown that at least a third person could identity him as the object of the 3. There is a justifiable motive for making it.
libelous publication
c. Defamatory imputation directed at a class or group of person in gen 2 types of privileged communication:
language are not actionable by individuals composing the class or group 1. Absolute - not actionable even if done in bad faith Congress, official
unless the statements are sweeping communications, pleadings, answers in hearings (must be related).
d. Blind items can be actionable if it is clear who is being referred to in the 2. Conditional or qualified - privilege is lost if there is proof of malice. Privilege
publication communication would be the 2 exceptions in Art 354.
Reason for doctrine of privileged communication
5. - - Right of the individual to enjoy immunity from the publication of untruthful
a. Dishonor - disgrace, shame or ignominy charges derogotory to his character is not absolute
b. Discredit - loss of credit or reputation; disesteem - Must at times yield to the superior necessity of subjecting to an investigation
c. Contempt - - Thought the fact that communication is privileged does not mean it is not
actionable
MUST PROVE EACH ELEMENT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
To rebut the presumption of malice, it must be shown:
1. The defamatory imp. Is true, in case the aw allows proof of the truth of the
imputation; The social standing an the position of the offended party are also taken into
2. It is published w good intention; consideration. (People v Bosier)
3. There is a justifiable motive for making it.
Slander committed against a teacher looked up for exemplariness of character was
2 types of privileged communication: held to be grave slander.
1. Absolute - not actionable even if done in bad faith Congress, official
communications, pleadings, answers in hearings (must be related).
2. Conditional or qualified - privilege is lost if there is proof of malice. Privilege
communication would be the 2 exceptions in Art 354. Other examples of grave slander
Reason for doctrine of privileged communication 1. Words imputing to unchastity to a respectable married lady and tending
- Right of the individual to enjoy immunity from the publication of untruthful 2. --
charges derogotory to his character is not absolute
- Must at times yield to the superior necessity of subjecting to an investigation Simple slander
- Thought the fact that communication is privileged does not mean it is not 1. Accusation that offended party has been successively living w diff men intended
actionable to correct an improper conduct, uttered by a kind of the accused (People v
Clarin)
SLAPP Phenomenon - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation 2. Calling a person a gangster (Arcand v people)
- Refers to meritless defamation suits filed by businesses or govt officials against 3. Uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the
citizens who speak out against them part of the offended party (People v de modesto
- Plaintiffs do not expect to succeed; use the suit to intimidate critics 4. Defamation uttered in political meetings
- Critics usually end up retracting their statements
Slander by deed
Libel - Cyber Crime Law - Committed by performing any act wc casts dishonor, discredit or contempt
- UN declares internet freedom a basic human right upon another person. This involves an act and not words.
- Cyber Libel
○ Content-related offense Elements:
○ Problematic because you are charged where the crime is committed 1.
(territoriality) 2.
3.
2. Slander
a. Oral defamation Unjust vexation - anything that annoys or irritates another wo justification
b. Punished by arresto mayor Slander by deed - aside from annoying and irritaitign there is publicity and dishonor or
contempt
Factors that determine gravity (People v Jaring) Acts of lascibviousness - aside from annoying and irritating there is present the
- Expressions used circumstances provided for in art 335 on rape,
- Personal relations of the accused and offended
- The circumstances surrounding the case

The social standing an the position of the offended party are also taken into
consideration. (People v Bosier)

Slander committed against a teacher looked up for exemplariness of character was

held to be grave slander.

Other examples of grave slander

1. Words imputing to unchastity to a respectable married lady and tending
2. --

Simple slander
1. Accusation that offended party has been successively living w diff men intended
to correct an improper conduct, uttered by a kind of the accused (People v
Clarin)
2. Calling a person a gangster (Arcand v people)