Constitutional Law Digest – Stef Macapagal
Tulfo v. People effort to verify the information given by his source or
GR Nos. 161032 and 161176 even to ascertain the identity of the person he was
16 September 2008 accusing.
b. Although falsity of the articles does not prove malice, the
Facts: existence of press freedom must be done “consistent with
Atty. Ding So of the Bureau of Customs filed four separate good faith and reasonable care.” This was clearly
Informations against Erwin Tulfo, Susan Cambri, Rey Salao, Jocelyn abandoned by Tulfo when he wrote the subject articles.
Barlizo, and Philip Pichay, accusing them of libel in connection with the This is no case of mere error or honest mistake, but a case
publication of articles in the column “Direct Hit” of the daily tabloid of a journalist abdicating his responsibility to verify his
Remate. The column accused So of corruption, and portrayed him as an story and instead misinforming the public.
extortionist and smuggler. c. Tulfo had written and published the articles with reckless
After trial, the RTC found Tulfo, et al. guilty of libel. The CA disregard of whether the same were false or not. The test
affirmed the decision. laid down is the “reckless disregard” test, and Tulfo failed
to meet that test.
Issues: d. Evidence of malice: The fact that Tulfo published another
1. Why was Borjal v. CA not applied to this case? article lambasting Atty. So after the commencement of an
2. W/N the assailed articles are privileged. action. Tulfo did not relent nor did he pause to consider
3. W/N the assailed articles are fair commentaries. his actions, but went on to continue defaming Atty. So.
This is a clear indication of his intent to malign Atty. So,
Ruling: no matter the cost, and is proof of malice.
1. Borjal was not applied to this case because: 3. NO. Good faith is lacking, as Tulfo failed to substantiate or even
a. Borjal stemmed from a civil action for damages based on attempt to verify his story before publication.
libel, and was not a criminal case. a. The provided no details o the acts committed by the
b. The ruling in Borjal was that there was no sufficient subject. They are plain and simple baseless accusations,
identification of the complainant. backed up by the word of one unnamed source.
c. The subject in Borjal was a private citizen, whereas in the b. Not “fair” or “true” because “fair” is defined as “having
present case, the subject is a public official. the qualities of impartiality and honesty.” “True” is
d. It was held in Borjal that the articles written by Art Borjal defined as “comfortable to fact; correct; exact; actual;
were “fair commentaries on matters of public interest.” genuine; honest.” Tulfo failed to satisfy these
2. NO. The columns were unsubstantiated attacks on Atty. So, and requirements, as he did not do research before making his
cannot be countenanced as being privileged simply because the allegations, and it has been shown that these allegations
target was a public official. were baseless. The articles are not “fair and true reports,”
a. Even with the knowledge that he might be in error, even but merely wild accusations.
knowing of the possibility that someone else may have
used Atty. So’s name, as Tulfo surmised, he made no Velasco, Jr., J:
1
Constitutional Law Digest – Stef Macapagal
Elements of fair commentary (to be considered privileged): It may be cliché that the pen is mightier than the sword, but in this
a. That it is a fair and true report of a judicial, legislative, or particular case, the lesson to be learned is that such a mighty weapon
other official proceedings which are not of confidential should not be wielded recklessly or thoughtlessly, but always guided by
nature, or of a statement, report, or speech delivered in conscience and careful thought.
said proceedings, or of any other act performed by a pulic
officer in the exercise of his functions; Obiter 2:
b. That it is made in good faith; A robust and independently free press is doubtless one of the most effective
c. That it is without any comments or remarks. checks on government power and abuses. Hence, it behooves government
functionaries to respect the value of openness and refrain from concealing
Journalists may be allowed an adequate margin of error in the exercise of from media corruption and other anomalous practices occurring within
their profession, but this margin does not expand to cover every defamatory their backyard. On the other hand, public officials also deserve respect and
or injurious statement they may make in the furtherance of their profession, protection against false innuendoes and unfounded accusation of official
nor does this margin cover total abandonment of responsibility. wrongdoing from an abusive press. As it were, the law and jurisprudence
on libel heavily tilt in favor of press freedom. The common but most unkind
The mere fact that the subject of an article is a public figure or a matter of perception is that government institutions and their officers and employees
public interest does not mean it is a fair commentary within the scope of are fair game to official and personal attacks and even ridicule. And the
qualified privileged communication, which would automatically exclude the practice on the ground is just as disconcerting. Reports and accusation of
author from liability. official misconduct often times merit front page or primetime treatment,
while defenses set up, retraction issued, or acquittal rendered get no more,
The confidentiality of sources and their importance to journalists are if ever, perfunctory coverage. The unfairness needs no belaboring. The
accepted and respected. What cannot be accepted are journalists making no balm of clear conscience is sometimes not enough.
efforts to verify the information given by a source, and using that unverified
information to throw wild accusations and besmirch the name of possibly an
innocent person. Journalists have a responsibility to report the truth, and in
doing so must at least investigate their stories before publication, and be
able to back up their stories with proof.
Journalists are not storytellers or novelists who may just spin tales out of
fevered imaginings, and pass them off as reality. There must be some
foundation to their reports; these reports must be warranted by facts.
Freedom of expression as well as freedom of the press may not be
unrestrained, but neither must it be reined in too harshly.
Obiter 1:
