Internet libel

In criminal actions especially for libel, the place where the crime is committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitute an essential element of jurisdiction. Pursuant to Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 4363, venue in libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited only either to (1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense, or (2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. In case the libel is committed in an internet website, can the venue be at the place where it was first accessed by the complainant? This is the issue raised in this case.

The case involved 13 counts of libel filed under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code against the officers and members of the board of trustees of a large group of disgruntled plan holders of the Pacific Plans Inc. (accused) known as Parents Enabling Parents Coalition Inc. (PEPCI). The complaint was filed by Jessie John Gimenez, the attorney-in-fact of Alfonso Yuchengco, Helen Y. Dee and the Malaysian Insurance Inc. The alleged libelous materials appeared on an internet website maintained by PEPCI (pepcoalition) to provide a forum by which the plan-holders could seek redress for their pecuniary loss under their policies.

Gimenez alleged that upon accessing the websites in Makati from August 25 to October 2, 2005, he was appalled to read 13 articles, maliciously and recklessly caused to be published by said accused containing highly derogatory statements and false accusations relentlessly attacking the Yuchengco family and Malayan. So he filed complaints for libel before the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office

After finding probable cause to indict the accused, the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office filed the 13 Informations charging accused with libel before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Initially the Informations were quashed because they lacked allegations that the offended parties were residing in Makati City at the time of the commission of the offense. Later on upon motion for reconsideration of the prosecution, the RTC issued an order allowing the prosecution to amend the Informations. In the amended Informations subsequently filed, it was alleged that the supposed libelous articles were posted and published in a website accessible in Makati City, which was accessed by private complainants in said place.

The accused again moved to quash the Informations on the ground that prosecution erroneously laid the venue of the case in the place where the offended party accessed the internet-published article. So the accused contended that the amended information still failed to vest jurisdiction upon the RTC of Makati City. Were they correct?

Yes. Republic Act 4363 amending Article 360 was enacted to prevent the indiscriminate or arbitrary laying of the venue in libel cases in distant, isolated or far flung areas meant to accomplish nothing more than harass or intimidate an accused. The disparity or unevenness of the situation becomes even more acute when the offended party is a person of sufficient means or possesses influence, and is motivated by spite or the need of revenge.

If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published are used by the offended party as basis for the venue, the Information must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first published as evidenced or supported by, for instance the address of their editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers, magazines or serial publication. This pre-condition becomes necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass.

But when it pertains to defamatory materials appearing on a website the same rule cannot be applied as there would be no way of determining the situs of the printing and first publication. The offended parties’ first access to the defamatory article on the accused website in Makati cannot be equated with “printing and first publication”, as it would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Article 360 sought to discourage and prevent. It hardly requires much imagination to see the chaos that would ensue in situations where the website’s author or writer, a blogger or anyone who posts messages therein could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines that private complainant may have allegedly accessed the offending website.

To hold that the Amended Information in this case sufficiently vested jurisdiction in the courts of Makati City simply because the defamatory articles were accessed therein would open the floodgates to libel suits being filed in all other locations where the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being accessed (Bonifacio et. al vs. RTC of Makati Br. 149 etc. G.R. 184800, May 5, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]