Fermin V. People - Digest

Title: Date: Ponente: Subject/Topic:

Fermin v. People 28 March 2008 J. Nachura Criminal Law, Libel

Facts: • •

• • • •

Cristy Fermin is the publisher and Bogs Tugas is the editor-in-chief of Gossip Tabloid The June 14, 1995 headline and lead story of the tabloid says that it is improbable for Annabelle Rama to go to the US should it be true that she is evading her conviction in an estafa case here in the Philippines for she and husband Eddie have more problems/cases to confront there. This was said to be due to their, especially Annabelle's, using fellow Filipinos’ money, failure to remit proceeds to the manufacturing company of the cookware they were selling and not being on good terms with the latter. Annabelle and Eddie filed libel cases against Fermin and Tugas before RTC of QC, Br. 218. RTC: Fermin and Tugas found guilty of libel. CA: Tugas was acquitted on account of non-participation but Fermin's conviction was affirmed. Fermin's motion for reconsideration was denied hence, this petition. She argues that she had no knowledge and participation in the publication of the article, that the article is not libelous and is covered by the freedom of the press.

Issue: WON Cristy Fermin is guilty of libel? Held/Ratio: YES.

•

Proof of knowledge of and participation in the publication is not required, if the accused has been specifically identified as “author, editor, or proprietor” or “printer/publisher” of the publication.

o

Petitioner was not only the “publisher,” but also the “president” and “chairperson.” 

•

The elements of libel were present.

o o o o

Evident imputation of the crime of malversation (converting money for personal use), of vices or defects for being fugitives from the law (evading prosecution in America) and of being a wastrel Attribution made publicly. Gossip Tabloid had a nationwide circulation. The victims were identified and identifiable. The article reeks of malice, as it tends to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the complainants.

  •

Petitioner’s criminal guilt should be affirmed, whether or not she had actual knowledge and participation.

Malice in law - the article was malicious in itself; the imputations were false. Malice in fact - there was motive to talk ill against complainants during the electoral campaign as Fermin is a close friend of Eddie's opponent in the Congressional race

While complainants are considered public figures for being personalities in the entertainment business, media people do not have the unbridled license to malign their honor and dignity by indiscriminately airing fabricated and malicious comments, whether in broadcast media or in print, about their personal lives.

Note: CA erred in acquitting Tugas, he being the editor-in-chief. But the SC cannot reinstate the ruling of the trial court convicting Bogs Tugas because with his acquittal by the CA as that would run afoul of his constitutional right against double jeopardy.