A libel case that was filed against Ms.

B in Regional Trial court by some

members of the House did not constitute a libel case. The definition of libel
was in Art 353 and 354 of the Revised Penal Code which states that 1Art.
353. Definition of Libel. — A 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. Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — 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, except in the
following cases: 1. A private communication made by any person to
another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and 2. A fair
and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of
any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of
confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise
of their functions. In order for a person to charge a libel there are certain
grounds or elements must meet: 2first is there must be a defamatory
imputation which means that the matter claimed to be libelous must
impute a crime, vice, defect, or any act, or omission, condition, status or
circumstance, tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt to a
natural or juridical person, second is there must be a publicity of libelous
matter means the accused caused the libelous material to be known or
1 The revised Penal Code
2 G.R. No. 170341
3G.R. No. 135306 
4 The 1987 Philippine Constitution
5 G.R. No. L-543 
6 G.R. No. L-17144
7 G.R. No. L-28196
read or seen or heard by a third person, other than the person to whom it
has been written, the third is that the person libeled must be identified
this means the complainant must prove he is the person subject of the
libelous matter, that it his reputation which was targeted, and lastly, that
there be malice on the part of the accused. This case filed against Ms. B did
not meet the elements of libel. Her speech did not point out a certain
persons who are benefiting from the mismanagement of Bangko Central.
Her speech was broad to point out a certain persons in congress. In the
case of 3MVRS PUBLICATIONS, INC., “libel is that the action must be
brought by the person against whom the defamatory charge has been
made. No action lies by a third person for damages suffered by reason of
defamation of another person, even though the plaintiff suffers some injury
therefrom. For recovery in defamation cases, it is necessary that the
publication be "of and concerning the plaintiff." Even when a publication
may be clearly defamatory as to somebody, if the words have no personal
application to the plaintiff, they are not actionable by him. If no one is
identified, there can be no libel because no one's reputation has been
injured.”

Ms. B was immune from criminal charge because she is part of the
congress which enjoys the parliamentary immunities. The accused was
giving her speech during the congress session. It is her duty as a congress to
say something during the session. According to 4Section 11, Article VI, of
the Constitution provides as follows:
1 The revised Penal Code
2 G.R. No. 170341
3G.R. No. 135306 
4 The 1987 Philippine Constitution
5 G.R. No. L-543 
6 G.R. No. L-17144
7 G.R. No. L-28196
A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years’ imprisonment, be privileged from
arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor
be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress or in
any committee thereof.

In the case of 5Vera vs. Avelino the supreme court explained for whose
benefit the right to parliamentary immunity “These privileges are thus
secured not with the intention of protecting the members against
prosecutors for their own benefit, but to support the rights of the people,
by enabling their representatives to execute the function of their office
without fear of prosecution, civil or criminal.” The accused was just doing
her job as a congress to voice out the people in the congress.

Every member of the congress must enjoy their right to privilege speech.
The privilege speech is a parliamentary privilege enjoyed by any member of
the senate or house of representative. According to the above provision
that “No member shall be questioned nor liable in any other place for any
speech or debate in congress or in any committee thereof”. That the
congress cannot be held liable to a crime of libel or oral defamation if they
are speaking during the session or any debate in the congress or in any
other committee thereof.

1 The revised Penal Code

2 G.R. No. 170341
3G.R. No. 135306 
4 The 1987 Philippine Constitution
5 G.R. No. L-543 
6 G.R. No. L-17144
7 G.R. No. L-28196
The main purpose of these privilege is to protect the congress from any
prosecution and to perform their duties and responsibility for the benefit of
the people. In the case of 6Osmeña v. Pendatun the supreme court gives
the definition of the purpose of privilege which states that “Our
Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental
privilege cherished in every legislative assembly of the democratic world. As
old as the English Parliament, its purpose is to enable and encourage a
representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and
success for it is indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest
liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of
every one, however, powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may
occasion. Such immunity has come to this country from the practices of
Parliament as construed and applied by the Congress of the United States.
Its extent and application remain no longer in doubt insofar as related to
the question before us. It guarantees the legislator complete freedom of
expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil
actions before the courts or any other forum outside of the Congressional
hall. But it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative
body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter
disorderly or unbecoming to a member thereof.”

A freedom of speech must be enjoyed by each and every Filipino but to not
to the extent to commit a crime. A freedom of speech is a constitutional

1 The revised Penal Code

2 G.R. No. 170341
3G.R. No. 135306 
4 The 1987 Philippine Constitution
5 G.R. No. L-543 
6 G.R. No. L-17144
7 G.R. No. L-28196
right as stated in Article 3 Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
which states that: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,
of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” In the
case of 7Gonzales v. Commission on Elections “free speech and free press
may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any
matter of public interest without censorship and punishment. There is to be
no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability
whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or
contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present danger of
substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent.” We all have the
freedom to speak, to express ourselves but it all has limitations.

1 The revised Penal Code

2 G.R. No. 170341
3G.R. No. 135306 
4 The 1987 Philippine Constitution
5 G.R. No. L-543 
6 G.R. No. L-17144
7 G.R. No. L-28196