6. U.S. v. Felipe Bustos, 37 Phil.

731 (1918)_ Freedom of expression and libel

Facts:
The case involves an appeal by the defendants, Felipe Bustos et al., who were charged with libel against
Roman Punsalan, a justice of the peace in the Province of Pampanga. The defendants, along with numerous
citizens, prepared and signed a petition accusing Punsalan of malfeasance in office and requesting his removal.
The petition was submitted to the Executive Secretary through the law office of Crossfield O'Brien, along with
affidavits supporting the allegations. The Executive Secretary referred the petition to the judge of first
instance for investigation. After an investigation, the judge recommended to the Governor-General that
Punsalan be removed from his position. However, Punsalan filed a motion for a new trial, and the judge
granted the motion and acquitted Punsalan of the charges. Subsequently, criminal action was initiated against
the defendants, charging them with libel based on the statements made in the petition. The trial court found
thirty-two of the defendants guilty and sentenced them to pay a nominal fine.

Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether the defendants are guilty of libel against Punsalan.

Ruling:
The court ruled that the defendants are not guilty of libel. The court found that express malice was not proved
by the prosecution and that the defendants acted in good faith. The court also noted that the charges and the
petition were transmitted through reputable attorneys to the proper functionary. The court concluded that
instead of punishing the defendants, they should be commended for their good citizenship and their honest
endeavor to improve the public service.

Ratio:
The court's decision is based on the principles of freedom of speech and press, as well as the right to assemble
and petition. The court emphasized that these rights are fundamental in a democratic society and are
protected by the Constitution. The court also recognized the doctrine of privileged communications, which
allows for criticism of public officials as long as it is made in good faith and without malice. The court found
that the defendants' statements were made in good faith and with justifiable ends and motives. The court
further explained that a privileged communication should not be subjected to excessive scrutiny to discover
grounds of malice. The court held that the onus of proving malice lies on the plaintiff and that the defendants'
statements were not made with express malice. The court also considered the fact that the charges and the
petition were transmitted through reputable attorneys, which further supported the defendants' good faith.
The court concluded that instead of punishing the defendants, they should be commended for their efforts to
improve public service through their honest endeavor. The court's decision is in line with the principles of
freedom of speech and press, as well as the right to assemble and petition, which are fundamental in a
democratic society.