Jerahmeel U.

Cuevas
Fernand Sazon Ramos vs CA
G.R. No. 120715 March 29, 1996
Topic: Definition of Libel
Facts:
Petitioner Ramos and private complainant Reyes are members of a homeowner's association.
Said association held an election for the member of its board of directors, both Ramos and Reyes were
candidates for the post. Ramos won said election.
Unable to accept defeat, Reyes questioned the election before their association's council. Said
council ordered a referendum be conducted due to Reyes' election protest. Leaflets then circulated to
the homeowners entitled "supalpal si Sazon(Ramos)" referring to the affirmative action by the council
regarding Reyes’ election protest. Further, the phrase "Sazon, nasaan ang pondo ng simbahan?" was
seen boldly written on the walls near the entrance gate of the subdivision.
Thinking that Reyes was behind such, Ramos wrote in the homeowner's newsletter, where he
is an editor for, defamatory remarks against Reyes. Said remarks describe Reyes as “mandurugas”,
swindler and/or a deceiver. Reyes then sued Sazon for libel.

Issue:
Whether or not the questioned article written by the petitioner is libelous.

Ruling:
Yes. Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as:
Art. 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.
For an imputation then to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: (a) it must be
defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be
identifiable
Ramos contends that (a) and (b) are not present. Sazon argues that the words he used in the
newsletter were not defamatory (mandurugas, manloloko, panlilinlang etc). That they do not impute
any crime. Court held that in libel cases, the question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means,
but what the words used by him mean. In this case, although they do not impute any crime, the words
used were meant to destroy Reyes’ reputation. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to
induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were
uttered were guilty of certain offenses or to hold said person up to public ridicule.
Malice is also present in this case. As provided in Art. 354 of the Revised Penal Code
Art. 354 Requirement of 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.
Ramos failed to discharge such assumption as he did not show proof to the contrary. No
evidence was presented that shows good intention or any justifiable motive behind his acts.
Reaction:
I agree with the ruling of the Court in this case. Going by the definition of libel in the Revised
Penal Code and the discussion regarding some of its elements, it was clear that the remarks of Ramos
were defamatory. Although Ramos was also a victim of libel which caused him to publicize his
remarks, he was too hasty in suspecting Reyes and took the law into his own hands.
The Court also discussed in this case the other defenses made by Ramos mainly on privileged
communication under Art. 354 of the Revised Penal Code:
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.
Ramos argued that his remarks fall under privileged communication as it was made against a
public official as Reyes was public relations consultant for the Department of Trade and Industry. The
Court held that it does not apply as the remarks should be in relation to public official’s position
which in this case refer to Reyes as a private citizen.