hange E hange E

XC di XC di
F- t F- t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a
LOpez vs. People -- GR. No. 172203, February 14, 2011
Same; Same; Criminal law; Libel; Elements; Words and Phrases: Libel is a public and maliciousimputation of a crime or of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status orcircumstance tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit or contempt of a natural or judicial person or toblacken the memory of one who is dead.
–

A libel is defined as “a
public and malicious imputation of acrime or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstancetending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or judicial person or to blacken thememory of
one who is dead
.” For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: a)
it must be defamatory; b) it must be malicious; c) it must be given publicity and d) the victim must be
DIMP
identifiable.” Absent one of these elements precludes the commission of the crime of libel.

Same; Same; Personal hurt or embarrassment or offense, even if real, is not automatically equivalent todefamation.
—
Truth be told that somehow the private respondent was not pleased with the
controvercial printed matter. But that is grossly insufficient to make it actionable by itself. “Personal
hurt or embarrassment or offense, even if real, is not automatically equivalen
t to defamation,” “words
which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words f general abusehowever opprobrious,
Ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not contitutte bases foran action for defamation in the absence
of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the language
is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself,”.

Same; Same; Pursuant to Art. 361 of the RPC, if the defamatory statement is made against a publicofficial with respect to
the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the allegation isshown, the accused will be entitled to an
acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputationwas published with good motives and for justifiable ends.
–
In arriving at an analogous finding of guilt onpetitioner, both lower courts heavily relied on the testimony of the petitioner
pertaining to the reasons
behind the printing of the phrase “CADIZ FOREVER BADING AND SAGAY NEVER.”
Our in-depth scrutinyof his testimony, however, reveals that the reasons elicited by the prosecution mainly relate to the
discharge of private respondent’s official duties as City Mayor of Cadiz City. For that matter, granting
that the controversial phrase is considered defamatory, still, no liability attaches on petitioner. Pursuantto Art. 361 of the
RPC, if the defamatory statement is made against a public official with respect to thedischarge of his official duties and
functions and the truth of the allegation is shown, the accused will beentitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove
that the imputation was published with goodmotives and for justifiable ends. As the court held in
United States v. Bustos,
the policy of a public officialmay be attacked, rightly or wrongly wih every argument which ability can find or ingenuity
invent. The
public officer “may suffer under a hostile and clear conscience. A public official must not be too thin skinned with refer-
- ence to comments upon his official acts

skinned with reference to comments upon his official acts”

MAYOR SALVADOR G.
ESCALANTE, JR., City Mayor of Cadiz City

put up billboards/signboards at the fence of Cadiz Hotel,

accused affixed the nickname of the herein private complainant

P5,000,000.00 - as moral damages.

mental anguish and

tends to induce suspicion on private respondent's character, integrity