GR 189754; (October, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189754 ; October 24, 2012
LITO BAUTISTA and JIMMY ALCANTARA, Petitioners, vs. SHARON G. CUNETA-PANGILINAN, Respondent.
FACTS
Two separate Informations for libel were filed against Pete Ampoloquio, Jr., Lito Bautista, and Jimmy Alcantara for publishing defamatory articles against respondent Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan in the tabloid Bandera. The articles contained derogatory statements, calling her “brain-dead,” “mega-brat,” and mocking her physical appearance and relationship with her husband. During trial, the prosecution presented its evidence and formally offered its exhibits. Petitioners Bautista and Alcantara then filed a Demurrer to Evidence, arguing the prosecution failed to prove their identities as the authors or that they participated in the publication. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the demurrer and dismissed the cases against them.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the RTC’s order granting the Demurrer to Evidence and remanded the case for the reception of the defense’s evidence.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The grant of a demurrer is only proper when the prosecution’s evidence is so insufficient that a conviction is impossible. The RTC erred in ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the identities of Bautista and Alcantara as responsible parties. The Informations explicitly alleged conspiracy among the accused, including the petitioners and the unknown directors/officers of Bandera Publishing Corporation. In libel, every person who participates in the publication of the defamatory material can be held liable. The prosecution’s evidence, including the articles themselves which bore the byline “By Pete G. Ampoloquio, Jr.” and identified Bautista as the “Editor-in-Chief” and Alcantara as the “Managing Editor” of Bandera, prima facie established their connection to the publication. The specific roles alleged, if proven, could make them liable as co-principals. At the stage of a demurrer, the court must assess the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction if not rebutted. Therefore, the demurrer was improperly granted, and the case must proceed to allow the petitioners to present their defense.