EN BANC

[G.R. No. 9726. December 8, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARSON TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

C. W O’Brien, for Appellant.

JOHNSON, J. :

This was an action for criminal libel.

The complaint alleged:

"That on the 25th day of September, 1913, the said Carson Taylor, being then and there the acting editor
and proprietor, manager, printer, and publisher in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, of a certain daily
bilingual newspaper, known as the ’Manila Daily Bulletin,’ a paper of large circulation throughout the
Philippine Islands, as well as in the United States and other countries in all of which both languages are
spoken and written, having as such the supervision and control of said newspaper, did then and there
willfully, feloniously, maliciously, and with intent to impeach the honesty, virtue, and reputation of one
Ramon Sotelo as member of the bar of the Philippine Islands and as a private individual, and to expose
him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, compose, print, edit, publish, and circulate and procure to be
composed, printed, edited, published, and circulated in said newspaper’s issue of the above mentioned
date, September 25, 1913, a certain false and malicious defamation and libel in the English language of
and concerning the said Ramon Sotelo.

"‘Conspiracy to defraud the insurance company.

"‘The building was fired to collect the amount of insurance.

"‘The movable furniture of value was removed before the fire.

"‘The full amount of the insurance was collected, and the conspiracy was a success.

Upon said complaint the defendant was arrested, arraigned, plead not guilty, was tried, found guilty of
the crime charged, and sentenced by the Honorable George N. Hurd, judge, to pay a fine of P200. From
that sentence the defendant appealed to this court and made the following assignment of error:

"First. The court erred ( ERROR OF LAW MAT BE REVIWED OR APPEAL TO WIN ON APPEAL THE
HIGHER COURT MUST FIND THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED) finding that the defendant was
responsible for and guilty of the alleged libel.

"Second. The court erred in finding that the defendant was the proprietor and publisher of the ’Manila
Daily Bulletin.’

In the Philippine Islands there exist no crimes such as are known in the United States and England as
common law crimes. ( all law must be written as a basis) No act constitutes a crime here unless it is
made so by law.

Libel is made a crime here by Act No. 277 of the United States Philippine Commission.

[ Act No. 277, October 24, 1901 ]

AN ACT DEFINING THE LAW OF LIBEL AND THREATS TO PUBLISH A LIBEL, MAKING LIBEL AND
THREATS TO PUBLISH A LIBEL MISDEMEANORS, GIVING A RIGHT OF CIVIL ACTION THEREFOR, AND
MAKING OBSCENE OR INDECENT PUBLICATIONS MISDEMEANORS.
By authority of the President of the United States, be it enacted by the United States Philippine
Commission, that:

Section 6: 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.

Said Act (No. 277) not only defines the crime of libel and prescribes the particular conditions necessary to
constitute it, but it also names the persons who may be guilty of such crime. In the present case the
complaint alleges that the defendant was, at the time of the publication of said alleged article "the acting
editor, proprietor, manager, printer, publisher, etc. etc. of a certain bilingual newspaper, etc., known as
the ’Manila Daily Bulletin,’ a paper of large circulation throughout the Philippine Islands, as well as in the
United States and other countries."

It will be noted that the complaint charges the defendant as "the acting editor, proprietor, manager,
printer, and publisher." From an examination of said Act No. 277, we find that section 6 provides that:
"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 said book or number of each newspaper or serial as
fully as if he were the author of the same."

By an examination of said article, with reference to the persons who may be liable for the publication of a
libel in a newspaper, we find that it only provides for the punishment of "the author, editor, or
proprietor." It would follow, therefore, that unless the proof shows that the defendant in the present case
is the "author, editor, or proprietor" of the newspaper in which the libel was published, he cannot be held
liable.

In the present case the Solicitor-General in his brief said that — "No person is represented to be either
the ’author, editor, or proprietor.’" That statement of the Solicitor-General is fully sustained by the record.
There is not a word of proof in the record showing that the defendant was either the "author, the editor,
or the proprietor." The proof shows that the defendant was the "manager." He must, therefore, be
acquitted of the crime charged against him, unless it is shown by the proof that he, as "manager" of the
newspaper, was in some way directly responsible for the writing, editing, or publishing of the matter
contained in said alleged libelous article. The prosecution presented the newspaper, the "Manila Daily
Bulletin," for the purpose of showing the relation which the defendant had to it. That was the only proof
presented by the prosecution to show the relation which the defendant had to the publication of the libel
in question. From an examination of the editorial page of said exhibit, we find that it shows that the
"Manila Daily Bulletin" is owned by the "Bulletin Publishing Company," and that the defendant was its
manager. There is not a word of proof in the record which shows what relation the manager had to the
publication of said newspaper. We might, by a series of presumptions and assumptions, conclude that the
manager of a newspaper has some direct responsibility with its publication. We believe, however, that
such presumptions and assumptions, in the absence of a single letter of proof relating thereto, would be
unwarranted and unjustified. The prosecuting attorney had an opportunity to present proof upon that
question. Either because he had no proof or because no such proof was obtainable, he presented none.

The courts cannot assume, in the absence of proof, that one who called himself "manager" was in fact
the "author, editor, or proprietor." We might assume, perhaps, that the ’’manager" of a newspaper plays
an important part in the publication of the same by virtue of the general signification of the word
"manager." Men cannot, however, be sentenced upon the basis of a mere assumption. There must be
some proof. The word "manage" has been defined by Webster to mean "to have under control and
direction; to conduct; to guide; to administer; to treat; to handle." Webster defines "manager" to be "one
who manages; a conductor or director; as, the manager of a theater." there being no proof whatever in
the record showing that the defendant was the "author, the editor, or the proprietor" of the newspaper in
question, the sentence of the lower court must be reversed, the complaint dismissed and the
defendant discharged from the custody of the law, with costs de officio. ( EACH PARTY BEARS
HIS OWN EXPENSES)

[ Act No. 277, October 24, 1901 ]

AN ACT DEFINING THE LAW OF LIBEL AND THREATS TO PUBLISH A LIBEL, MAKING LIBEL AND THREATS
TO PUBLISH A LIBEL MISDEMEANORS, GIVING A RIGHT OF CIVIL ACTION THEREFOR, AND MAKING
OBSCENE OR INDECENT PUBLICATIONS MISDEMEANORS.

By authority of the President of the United States, be it enacted by the United States Philippine
Commission, that:

SECTION 1. A libel is a malicious defamation (false statement made maliciously that causes damage to
the claimant. Malicious in this case means the defendant either knew the statement was not true or
did not take proper care to check. It is often covered under laws regarding defamation.,) expressed
either in writing, printing, or by signs or pictures, or the like, or public theatrical exhibitions, tending to
blacken the memory of one who is dead or to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation, or publish the
alleged or natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby expose him to public hatred, contempt, or
ridicule.

SEC. 2. Every person who willfully( sinadya )and with a malicious intent to injure(harmed, damaged, or
impaired.) another publishes or procures to be published any libel shall be punished by a fine of not
exceeding two thousand dollars or imprisonment for not exceeding one year, or both.

SEC. 3. An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it
is shown.

SEC. 4. In all criminal prosecutions for libel the truth may be given in evidence to the court, and if it
appears to the court that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives
and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; otherwise lie shall be convicted; but to establish
this defense, not only must the truth of the matter so charged be proven, but also that it was published
with good motives and for justifiable ends.
SEC. 5. To sustain a charge of publishing a libel it is not needful that the words 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.

SEC. 6. 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.

SEC. 7. No reporter, editor, or proprietor of any newspaper is liable to any prosecution for a fair and true
report of any judicial, legislative, or other public official proceedings, or of any statement, speech,
argument, or debate in the course of the same, except upon proof of malice in making such report,
which shall not be implied from the mere fact of publication.

SEC. 8. Libelous remarks or comments connected with matter privileged by the last section receive no
privilege by reason of being so connected.

SEC. 9. A private communication made by any person to another, in good faith, in the performance of
any duty, whether legal, moral, or social, solely with the fair and reasonable purpose of protecting the
interests of the person making the communication or the interests of the person to whom the
communication is made, is a privileged communication, and the person making the same shall not be
guilty of libel nor be within the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 10. Every person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him, or any parent, husband,
wife, or child of such person, or any member of his family, and every person who offers to prevent the
publication of any libel upon another person, with intent to extort any money or other valuable
consideration from any person, shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars or by
imprisonment for not exceeding six months, or both.

SEC. 11. In addition to the criminal action hereby prescribed, a right of civil action is also hereby given to
any person libeled as hereinbefore set forth against the person libeling him for damages sustained by
such libel, and the person so libeled shall lie entitled to recover in such civil action not only the actual
pecuniary damages sustained by him but also damages for injury to his feelings and reputation, and in
addition such punitive damages as the court may think will be a just punishment to the libeler and an
example to others. Suit may be brought in any Court of First Instance having jurisdiction of the parties.
The presumptions, rules of evidence, and special defenses herein provided for criminal prosecutions
shall be equally applicable in civil actions under this section.
SEC. 12. Any person who writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, publishes, sells, or keeps for sale,
distributes, or exhibits any obscene or indecent writing, paper, hook, or other matter, or who designs,
copies, draws, engraves, paints, or otherwise prepares any obscene picture or print, or who moulds,
cuts, casts, or otherwise makes any obscene or indecent figure, or who writes, composes, or prints any
notice or advertisement of any such writing, paper, book, print, or figure shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment not
exceeding one year, or both.

SEC. 13. All laws and parts of laws now in force, so far as the same may he in conflict herewith, are
hereby repealed: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall operate as a repeal of existing laws in so
far as they are applicable to pending actions or existing causes of action, but as to such causes of action
or pending actions existing laws shall remain in full force and effect.

SEC. 14. All criminal actions under the provisions of this Act shall be begun and prosecuted under the
sole direction and control of the ordinary prosecuting officers, anything in the existing laws to the
contrary notwithstanding.

SEC. 15. This Act shall take effect on its passage.

Enacted, October 24, 1901.