A is the president of the corporate publisher of the daily tabloid, Bulgar; B is the managing editor; and C is the author/writer. In his column, Direct Hit, C wrote about X, the head examiner of the BIR-RDO Manila as follows:
“Itong si X ay talagang BUWAYA kaya ang logo ng Lacoste T shirt niya ay napaka suwapang na buwaya. Ang nickname niya ay si Atty. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay 90% sa bayad ng taxpayer at ang para sa RP ay 10% lang. Kaya ang baba ng collection ng RDO niya. Masyadong magnanakaw si X at dapat tanggalin itong bundat na bundat na buwaya na ito at napakalaki na ng kurakot.”
A, B and C were charged with libel before the RTC of Manila. The three (3) defendants argued that the article is within the ambit of qualified privileged communication; that there is no malice in law and in fact; and, that defamatory comments on the acts of public officials which are related to the discharge of their official duties do not constitute libel.
Was the crime of libel committed? If so, are A, B, and C all liable for the crime? Explain. (5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Yes, the crime of libel was committed, and A, B, and C are all liable. Under Article 353 of the RPC, libel is a public, malicious imputation causing dishonor. While comments on public officers are qualifiedly privileged, actual malice—comments
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What constitutes libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code?
Article 353 defines libel as a public and malicious imputation causing dishonor or discredit.
When is the qualified privilege protecting fair comments on public officers defeated?
Qualified privilege is destroyed by actual malice or reckless disregard of whether the statement is false.
Who among the following are criminally liable for libel under Article 360 of the RPC?
Article 360 explicitly holds the author, editor, and publisher criminally responsible for libel.
What constitutes 'actual malice' in defamatory publications concerning public officials?
Choices available with full access.
Why are the publisher president and managing editor held liable alongside the writer for libel?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Crime of Libel
Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, libel is 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. To constitute libel, the imputation must be defamatory, public, malicious, and directed at an identifiable person. Calling a public official a thief and corrupt without factual basis satisfies all essential elements of criminal libel.
2. Actual Malice Rule
While fair commentaries on the official acts of public officers are qualifiedly privileged, this privilege is not absolute and is defeated by proof of actual malice. Actual malice exists when a defamatory statement is published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. When a writer publishes scurrilous personal epithets, unsubstantiated accusations of corruption, and malicious insults against a public officer without verifying the truth of the allegations, actual malice is established, forfeiting any claim of qualified privileged communication.
3. Persons Liable Libel
Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability for libel published in a newspaper, magazine, or daily tabloid extends beyond the actual writer or author. The law explicitly holds the author, the editor, and the publisher jointly and severally liable for the publication of defamatory matter. Corporate officers who act as publisher or managing editor cannot escape criminal responsibility by claiming lack of direct knowledge or personal involvement, as the statutory framework imposes criminal liability on key editorial and publishing officers as if they were the authors.