Foz, Jr. vs. People

A court acquires jurisdiction over a libel case only if the Information alleges the specific venue requirements under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code — namely, that the libelous article was printed and first published within the court's territorial jurisdiction, or that the offended party actually resided there at the time of the commission of the offense; an allegation that the publication has "considerable circulation" in the city or that the offended party practices his profession there is insufficient to vest jurisdiction.

Vicente Foz, Jr. was a columnist and Danny G. Fajardo was the editor-publisher of Panay News, a daily newspaper circulating in Iloilo City and the surrounding region. The offended party, Dr. Edgar Portigo, was a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City serving as company physician at the local office of San Miguel Corporation. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, prescribes the specific venues where criminal actions for written defamation may be filed: the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published, or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.

On July 5, 1994, Panay News, a daily newspaper with considerable circulation in Iloilo City and the surrounding region, published an article entitled "Meet Dr. Portigo, Company Physician" written by columnist Vicente Foz, Jr. The article recounted the experience of Lita Payunan, wife of a San Miguel Corporation employee, who had consulted Dr. Edgar Portigo, the company physician at the local San Miguel Corporation office, for an illness. According to the article, Dr. Portigo took seven months to diagnose her condition as rectum myoma and recommended surgery. When the family chose their own surgeon rather than Dr. Portigo's recommendee, the article stated that Dr. Portigo became angry. After a second operation performed by Dr. Portigo's recommendee, the patient reportedly woke to find her anus and vagina closed and a hole with a catheter punched on her right side, followed by a cancer diagnosis. The article portrayed Dr. Portigo as an incompetent and opportunistic physician who enriched himself at the expense of the poor, and it concluded with a broader critique of physicians and hospitals that prioritize profits over patient welfare. Lita Payunan died on July 2, 1994.

On October 17, 1994, an Information was filed before the RTC of Iloilo City charging Foz and Fajardo with libel under Article 353 and punishable under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that the article was published "in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this court" and described Panay News as "a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region." It further described Dr. Portigo as "a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City." Upon arraignment on March 1, 1995, both petitioners pleaded not guilty. After trial, the RTC found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt on December 4, 1997. Their motion for reconsideration was denied, and the CA affirmed the conviction in toto on November 24, 2004, with a subsequent denial of reconsideration on April 8, 2005.

Petitioners filed the present petition, initially arguing that the article was not libelous, that malice was not proven, and that the article constituted privileged communication. In their Reply, petitioners raised for the first time the issue that the Information did not contain allegations sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Iloilo City. The Court found this threshold issue dispositive, noting that the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.

• Defamatory Imputation: Petitioners argued that the CA erred in finding the element of defamatory imputation satisfied, contending that a newspaper columnist who sympathizes with a patient and expresses the family's outrage in print does not commit libel when criticizing a doctor's competence, even if the criticism turns out to be lacking in basis or entirely false.
• Malice and Privileged Communication: Petitioners contended that the article was written in good faith in the belief that it would serve the public good; that no malice in law or actual malice was proven by the prosecution; and that the article was printed pursuant to the bounden duty of the press to report matters of public interest, thus constituting constitutionally protected privileged communication.
• Liability of the Publisher: Petitioners maintained that the subject article was an opinion column representing the columnist's exclusive views, and that Fajardo, as editor and publisher of Panay News, did not have to share those views and should not be held responsible for the crime of libel.
• Jurisdiction of the RTC: Petitioners raised for the first time in their Reply that the Information charging them with libel did not contain allegations sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Iloilo City.

• Reviewability of Factual Issues: The Solicitor General argued that only errors of law are reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and that petitioners were raising a factual issue — whether the element of malice was established — which would require re-weighing evidence already passed upon by both the CA and the RTC.
• Finality of Factual Findings: The Solicitor General contended that the factual findings of the CA, affirming those of the RTC, are accorded finality unless there appear on record facts or circumstances of weight which the court may have overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, may alter the result — a situation not obtaining in this case.

• Jurisdiction and Venue in Libel Cases: Whether the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 23, had jurisdiction over the offense of libel as charged in the Information dated October 17, 1994.
• Defamatory Imputation: Whether the subject article was libelous within the meaning and intendment of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Malice and Privileged Communication: Whether malice existed in the publication of the article and whether the article was constitutionally protected as privileged communication.
• Liability of the Publisher: Whether petitioner Fajardo, as editor-publisher of Panay News, could be held liable for the crime of libel for the columnist's views.

• Jurisdiction and Venue in Libel Cases: No. The RTC of Iloilo City had no jurisdiction over the offense because the Information failed to allege that the libelous article was printed and first published in Iloilo City or that the offended party actually resided there at the time of the commission of the offense, as required by Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Defamatory Imputation: N/A — the Court did not reach this issue, having disposed of the case on jurisdictional grounds.
• Malice and Privileged Communication: N/A — the Court did not reach this issue, having disposed of the case on jurisdictional grounds.
• Liability of the Publisher: N/A — the Court did not reach this issue, having disposed of the case on jurisdictional grounds.

• Jurisdiction and Venue in Libel Cases: Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, provides that where the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action for written defamation may be filed in the court of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published, or in the province or city where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. The Information alleged that Panay News was "a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region," but this only established that Iloilo was a place of considerable circulation, not that the article was printed and first published there. Following Chavez vs. Court of Appeals and Agustin vs. Pamintuan, the fact that a publication is in general circulation in a given city does not necessarily establish that it was published and first printed in that city. The Information also alleged that Dr. Portigo was "a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City," but this did not clearly and positively indicate that he was actually residing in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the offense; one who transacts business or practices a profession in a place does not thereby become a resident therein for purposes of venue. Because the Information failed to allege either of the venue requirements under Article 360, the RTC of Iloilo City never acquired jurisdiction, and its decision convicting petitioners was void. The objection based on lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal, as jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be conferred by waiver or consent.

• Venue as Essential Element of Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases — Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and the offense must have been committed, or any of its essential ingredients must have taken place, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. If the evidence adduced during trial shows that the offense was committed elsewhere, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the RTC of Iloilo City lacked jurisdiction because the Information did not allege the venue requirements of Article 360.

• Venue Requirements for Libel Under Article 360, Revised Penal Code — For a private individual as offended party, the criminal action for written defamation may be filed in the court of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published, or in the province or city where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. Two specific allegations must appear in the Information: (1) the place where the libelous article was printed and first published, or (2) the actual residence of the offended party at the time of the offense. An allegation of "considerable circulation" in a city does not satisfy the first requirement, and an allegation that the offended party practices his profession in a city does not satisfy the second.

• Jurisdiction May Be Raised at Any Stage — An objection based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged may be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal. Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by sovereign authority and given only by law. The Court allowed petitioners to raise the jurisdictional issue for the first time in their Reply.

• Residence Distinguished from Business or Professional Practice — Residence involves the idea of something beyond a transient stay in a place; to be a resident, one must abide in a place with actual bodily presence combined with a freely exercised intention of remaining there permanently or for an indefinite time. One who transacts business in a place and spends considerable time thereat does not thereby become a resident therein. Pursuit of business or profession in a place is not conclusive of residence there for purposes of venue.

• "Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction." — This statement opens the Court's analysis of the dispositive issue and encapsulates the doctrinal foundation for the ruling that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the libel charge.

• "The allegations in the Information that 'Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region' only showed that Iloilo was the place where Panay News was in considerable circulation but did not establish that the said publication was printed and first published in Iloilo City." — This passage applies the Article 360 venue requirement to the specific language of the Information and demonstrates why the allegation of circulation is insufficient to vest jurisdiction.

• "While the Information alleges that 'Dr. Edgar Portigo is a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City,' such allegation did not clearly and positively indicate that he was actually residing in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the offense." — This passage clarifies that professional practice in a city does not equate to actual residence for venue purposes under Article 360.

• "Considering that the Information failed to allege the venue requirements for a libel case under Article 360, the Court finds that the RTC of Iloilo City had no jurisdiction to hear this case." — This is the Court's conclusive application of the venue-jurisdiction doctrine to the facts, directly producing the dismissal.

• Fukuzume vs. People, G.R. No. 143647, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 570 — Followed for the proposition that lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged may be raised at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal, and that jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred by waiver or consent.

• Macasaet vs. People, G.R. No. 156747, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 255 — Followed for the rule that jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and that if the evidence shows the offense was committed elsewhere, the court should dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

• Agbayani vs. Sayo, 178 Phil. 579 (1979) — Followed for the restatement of the venue rules under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code for libel cases, distinguishing between public officers and private individuals as offended parties.

• Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125813, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 279 — Followed for the holding that an allegation of "general circulation" in a city does not establish that the libelous article was published and first printed in that city, and that allowing venue based on circulation alone would permit forum-shopping contrary to the intent of Republic Act No. 4363.

• Agustin vs. Pamintuan, G.R. No. 164938, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 601 — Followed for two propositions: (1) that an allegation of general circulation in a city is insufficient to establish printing and first publication there; and (2) that an allegation of business or professional position in a city does not establish actual residence there for venue purposes under Article 360.

• Article 360, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 4363) — Provides the specific venue rules for criminal actions in cases of written defamation. For a private individual as offended party, the action may be filed in the court of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published, or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. The Court found that the Information failed to allege either venue, rendering the RTC of Iloilo City without jurisdiction.

• Article 353, Revised Penal Code — Defines libel as the public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a person. Petitioners were charged under this provision but the Court did not reach the merits of the libel charge.

• Article 355, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for libel by means of writings or similar means. The RTC sentenced petitioners under this provision, but the conviction was set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, limiting review to questions of law. The Solicitor General invoked this rule to argue that petitioners' factual issues were not reviewable, but the Court resolved the case on a question of law — jurisdiction.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura concurred in the decision. No separate concurring opinions were written.