The Supreme Court has acquitted Jade Karla Tan y Cabangon of the crime of cyber libel, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the element of actual malice beyond reasonable doubt. In its decision, the Court granted her Petition for Review on Certiorari and reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals rulings that had found against her.
The Case
An Information was filed against Jade charging her in connection with two posts published on a Facebook account under the name "Jade Karla Cabangon Tan." The Information alleged that the posts were made with malicious intent of impeaching the integrity, virtue, character and reputation of Ramon A. Orfanel, the incumbent Mayor of the Municipality of Catanauan, Province of Quezon, prior to January 2016 or subsequent thereto.
The posts referred to a mayor whose job was described as buying lots and renaming them after his family members, and complained that a family house was torn down for a town investor and that the person in the highest position wanted "PADULAS" before permits could be issued. At the arraignment, Jade pleaded not guilty, and after pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented three witnesses: Mary Grace G. Dela Torre, Blesilda H. Ramirez, and Orfanel. Dela Torre and Ramirez, both employees of the local government of Catanauan, Quezon, testified that they read the posts and identified the person alluded to as Orfanel, referencing that he was the mayor and the person with the highest position in the municipality, and the color orange he used in his campaigns.
Orfanel, a lawyer, affirmed that he was the mayor of Catanauan, Quezon from 2007 up to 2016. He testified that in 2015 he was approached by Petrona Cabangon Tan, his cousin and Jade's mother, and a representative from Jollibee about opening a branch in the municipality, but the branch was never built. In January 2016, he learned of rumors that he was the reason it was not built, and found out from Dela Torre that Jade had posted the messages. He concluded he was the person referred to because of mentions of an award, his position as the only mayor, the color orange, and a reference to his wife who had filed her certificate of candidacy as mayor.
Orfanel confirmed that Jade later posted an apology on Facebook and on a big billboard in front of the lot where the Jollibee branch was supposed to be constructed. The defense presented Jade as witness, who testified that she did not admit to any wrongdoing during a meeting with Orfanel.
The Issue
The Court examined whether the element of actual malice was proven beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction for cyber libel.
The Ruling
The Court ruled that while the statements may be offensive, petitioner should be acquitted of the charge of cyber libel for failure to prove the element of actual malice beyond reasonable doubt.
The dispositive portion states: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The March 14, 2022 Decision and the February 10, 2023 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 44396 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Jade Karla Tan y Cabangon is ACQUITTED of the crime of cyber libel." The Court also directed that entry of judgment be issued immediately.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 265929
- CA-G.R. CR No. 44396
- Orfanel was mayor of Catanauan, Quezon from 2007 up to 2016
- Court of Appeals Decision: March 14, 2022
- Court of Appeals Resolution: February 10, 2023
- PHP 50,000.00 — remaining balance of damage under the Compromise Agreement, in Orfanel's own assessment
The Court's Reasoning
The Court cited Disini v. Secretary of Justice, which provides that there is actual malice or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, requiring a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. The Court noted that gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual malice.
The CA had found malice because petitioner had a grudge against Orfanel and was fueled by vengeance for their family's failed business deal, while the RTC observed that she maligned Orfanel without verifying the veracity of her allegations. The Court held that these circumstances do not show beyond reasonable doubt that actual malice was present, as they do not prove that petitioner knew her statements were false or acted with reckless disregard of whether they were false.
Citing Labargan v. People, the Court noted that offensive declarations regarding the discharge of a public officer's duties are not actionable by themselves and warned against a chilling effect on the public. Taking into account the constitutional presumption of innocence, acquittal ensues where actual malice is not established.
The Court was also mindful of other circumstances: petitioner and Orfanel are relatives; two public apologies were made; the Compromise Agreement stated Orfanel had forgiven petitioner; and petitioner had no criminal record prior to the incident. Reiterating Causing v. People, the Court noted that the continuing recognition of criminal libel is a prerogative of the Legislature, and that the judicial branch's duty is to interpret and apply the law to determine whether the standards for conviction are met.
Source: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 265929, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.