Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2704 December 6, 1906
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FEDERICO ORTIZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Rosado, Sanz and Opisso for defendant Jose Gonzalez Paramos.
Chicote & Miranda for defendant Federico Ortiz.
Attorney-General Araneta for appellee.
TORRES, J.:
Upon a written complaint dated the 15th of March, 1904, signed by M. Fernandez Yanson and filed in the justice's court of Iloilo, the provincial fiscal of the said city, on May 10, 1904, filed a written information (1) accusing Federico Ortiz, Francisco Benavent, Jose Gonzalez Paramos, Juan Llorente, and Anastasio Montes of the crime of libel, as on February 6, 1904, the accused who, respective, were then proprietor of a newspaper man and by the public under the nom de plume of Flagelo, publish and print in the said newspaper an article reading thus:
. . . Saturday ... Flagelo, who is, as is proven, a coward, undertakes to pint out in his melon-dramatico that a certain Father Quintin, who eared Pinay's confession, whispered to the lady ... what the presidiario de la Concepcion might have whispered to her himself. We may pass over what the coadjutor, being her confessor, Father Quintin went down and that she had approached the confessional, having been previously apprised by the maid's winks that there was to be some funny business, a s the Chinese saying goes; but the main question her in not so much the matter of a work of fiction on social customs it is the brining forward of a dramatic fact of singular exception, Flagelo is in duty bound to know that this fact exists. And he knowing this; neither Flagelo will tell us the name of that Father Quintin, or otherwise the writer will have the option of calling him a vile soul, a coward, a dirt-sucker, a savage, ... and I don't know what else; but if he proves it satisfactorily, the writer will extend to him a friendly hand and will further tell him that hogs always look toward the ground. So let Flagelo Choose fro himself a man. Such is the writer's opinion. — Curro.
The terms coward, vile soul, dirt-sucker, savage, hogs always look forward the ground, as employed in said publication, refer to one Manuel Fernandez Yanson, it is alleged, are defamatory, a and tend to impeach the honesty, virtue, reputation, and dignity of the said Yanson; and that the accused did, willfully and maliciously, edit, print, publish, and part with the immediate custody of the said publication, with intent to injured the said Manuel Fernandez Yanson and thereby expose him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided; that the facts as charged have been testified to by several neighbors and borne out by copies of the aforesaid periodical submitted to the court below.
Admission of the complaint as filed was ordered and the demurrer thereto overruled; the case was tried and the judge below entered judgment on March 1, 1905, absolving Francisco Benavent of the charge and condemning Federico Ortiz and Jose Gonzalez Paramos each to pay a time of P200 and one-third of the costs of the suit, the remaining one-third de oficio. The condemned parties were remanded in custody until the payment of the fines imposed upon them, with accordance with the provisions of article II of Act No. 277. From this judgment the accused Paramos and Ortiz, appealed.
Before the case was tried one of the accused, Anastasio ]Montes, died and on motion of the provincial fiscal the charge against Juan Llorente was withdraws in order to have him appear for the prosecution, From have been satisfactorily proven:
That on or before the 6th day of February, 1904, and even prior to that date, a weekly paper published in the Spanish language and entitled "La Revista Catolica" was printed, published, and circulated throughout the city of pueblos of Islas de Negros; that its issue was 400 copies, and furhter that it was the organ of the Centro Catolico Apostolico Romano, organized in the said City of Iloilo. By virtue of appointment made by the said Centro Catolico, Federico Ortiz was, on the said date of February 6, 1904, the Director of the aforementioned Revista Catolica. Francisco Benavent was the manager of the said weekly, and was in-charge of its finances its distribution and circulation among its subscribed. Jose Gonzalez Paramos, proprietor of the printing office called "La Editorial," was then and there the printing in charge of the edition of the said weekly. Anastasio Montes was editor in chief.
Manuel Fernandez Yanson, a newspaper man, a writer in a proper published in Iloilo called "El Tiempo" and whose literary productions were published under the nom de plume of Flagelo, appears in the records of the case, by indisputable proofs, to be pueblos of Iloilo and of Isla de Negros under the said assumed name. In the first column, sixth page, issue No. 24, of the said Revista, dated February 14, 1904 (Exhibit 2), there appears a letter addressed by Anastasio Montes to Flagelo or Manuel Fernandez Yanson (fol. 24 of the record), showing thereby that in the office of La Revista Catolica it was known who this man Flagelo was.
During the last days of 1903, Manuel Fernandez Yanson, under the assumed name of Flagelo, wrote a melodramatic work entitled "From Magallanes to Polavieja," which work was stage for the first time on the night of January 3, 1904, in the Teatro de Jaro and subsequently in Iloilo and in other pueblos in the said province. The work was critically reviewed and discussed by La Revista Catolica, and El Tiempo took up the controversy in defense of the melodrama.
In accordance of this controversy the Revista Catolica, in this issue No. 27, dated Sunday, February 6, 1904, published ab article or review, which is made part of the record, openly and expressly directed to Manuel Fernandez Yanson, author of the said melodrama and know as Flagelo. In the provisions of section 2, Act No. 277, enacted the 24th day October, 1901, the following is to be found: "Every person who willfully and with a malicious intent any libel shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding one year, or both."
Section 5 of the same act prescribes: 1awphil.net
To sustain a charge of publishing libel it is not needful that the works or things complained of should have been read or seen by another, It is enough that the accused knowingly parted with the immediate custody of the libel under circumstances which exposed it to be read or seen by any other person than himself.
Section 6 of the same act prescribes:lawphil.net
Every author, editor, or proprietor of any book, newspaper or serial publication is chargeable with the publication of any words contained in any part of such book or number of each newspaper or serial as fully as if he were the author of the same.
The words employed and the language used in the foregoing article of the Revista are in themselves as a matter of fact markedly libelous. The mere reading of the article in question containing the words coward, vile, soul, dirt-sucker, savage, hogs always look toward the ground, produce in the mind the unmistakable conviction of the writer's intent and purpose to impeach and injured the honesty, virtue, credit, and reputation of Manuel Fernandez Yanson, known by the public as a writer under the name of Flagelo, who in several articles and other literally productions published by himself in the newspapers and also in the said melodrama, appears as the author thereof, property exposing him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule.
True it is that any of the accused had the right to analyze, discuss, and criticize the literary work written by Manuel Fernandez Yanson under the name of Flagelo; but they had no right to cast aspersions, bereft of reason, upon the author of the work, especially when the argument of the drama had no reference whatsoever to any of them. It can not be denied, therefore, that the article or review in question is a libel.
Francisco Benavent having been absolved, this decision will only deal with the responsibility of the appellants Ortiz and Paramos.
It is satisfactorily proven by irrefutable and conclusive evidence that Federico Ortiz, the accused, was the responsible director of the Revista Catolica and his name appears on the front page, issue No. 27, of the paper dated February 6, 1904, a copy of which is attached to the complaint, marked "No. 1." The libelous matter complained of is contained therein.
The fact also proven that Anastasio Montes, now deceased, was the person charged with the editing of all from responsibility for the accused, Federico Ortiz, inasmuch as Ortiz was in duty bound to direct, inspect, and revise all matter published in the said paper, for which purpose he will appointed by the Centro Catolico. It was his duty as such director to know and inform himself of all matter to be published by the Revista. If he has been negligent he has rendered himself responsible for the libel ]published, for the presumed of law is that he was at the time cognizant of an did authorize the libelous matter to be published, thus assuming criminal responsibility as if he were himself the author of the libel.
With regard to Jose Gonzalez Paramos, his culpability arises from the proven fact he was at the time the proprietor of the printing plant which printed the Revista Catolica, and therefore responsible for publishing the libel. He was at the same time the printer and editor of the Revista by virtue of a contract for a certain consideration made by and between him and the Centro Catolico, and is, therefore, likewise liable for the crime as charged.
By means of his printing plant, and with his express consent, among others this issue No. 27 of the Revista dated February 6, 1904, containing the libelous matter complained of, was printed and published, By so doing he has rendered himself guilty, together in section 2 of the Act No. 277.
According to the legal doctrines and jurisprudence of the United States, the printer of a publication containing libelous matter is liable for the same by reason of his direct connection therewith and his cognizance of the contents thereof. With regard to a publication in which a libel is printed, not only was participate but also all other persons who in any way participated in or have nay connection with his publication are liable as publishers.
For the reasons herein before stated, we feel justified in affirming the sentenced appealed from by the defendants, and we find, moreover, that the exculpatory allegations of appellants are improper and insufficient.
If it were true that the publication of the said libelous matter was due to a justifiable motive and not to a malicious intent, then the accused were bound to show it, in accordance with section 4 of the act referred to; but this they did not do.
We therefore affirmed the sentence of the lower court with costs of this instance against Ortiz and Paramos, the accused, in equal parts, but the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment in lieu of payment of fine a hereby revoked, as here is no provision made in Act No. 277, for such punishment. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.lawphil.net
Mapa, J., did not sit in this case.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
