Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs. Reyes

An information for libel published in a non-official language is valid even if it does not quote the libelous article but includes a Spanish translation, and the copies of the newspaper containing the article and translation are admissible as the best evidence of the libel charged; refusal to admit them may be corrected by mandamus.

The Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga instituted two libel prosecutions against Andres Guevarra in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, presided over by respondent Judge Hermogenes Reyes. The charges concerned an article published in the Pampango-language weekly Ing Magumasid. The proceedings implicated the sufficiency of a libel information for a publication in a non-official language and the admissibility of documentary evidence in criminal cases.

The Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga filed two informations for libel against Andres Guevarra in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, docketed as criminal cases Nos. 4501 and 4502. The informations alleged that Guevarra, with malicious intent, published on page 9 of the weekly paper Ing Magumasid in its issue of July 13, 1930, a squib in verse, of which a translation into Spanish was included therein, intended to impeach the honesty, integrity, and reputation of Clemente Dayrit in case No. 4501 and of Mariano Nepomuceno in case No. 4502. Guevarra demurred on the ground of duplicity, arguing that he had published only one libelous article in the July 13, 1930 issue. The court overruled the demurrer.

A joint trial of the two cases was held. During trial, the fiscal attempted to present as evidence for the prosecution Exhibits A, B, C, and D, which were copies of Ing Magumasid containing the libelous article with the innuendo, another article in the vernacular published in the same weekly, and its translation into Spanish. Counsel for Guevarra objected to this evidence, and the court sustained the objection.

The prosecution then asked for an amendment of the information. The court denied the petition on the ground that it would impair the rights of the defendant, holding that the omission of the libelous article in the original information was fatal to the prosecution.

The fiscal thereafter filed a petition for mandamus in the Supreme Court to compel the respondent judge to admit Exhibits A, B, C, and D as evidence for the prosecution in criminal cases Nos. 4501 and 4502. The respondents answered the petition, praying for its dismissal with costs against the petitioner.

• Best Evidence: Petitioner argued that the exhibits in question are the best evidence of the libel, the subject matter of the information, and should therefore be admitted.

• Necessity of Amendment: Respondents maintained that, inasmuch as the libelous articles were not quoted in the information, said evidence cannot be admitted without amending the information.
• Omission Fatal: The respondent judge denied the prosecution's request to amend the information on the ground that it would impair the rights of the defendant and that the omission of the libelous article in the original information was fatal to the prosecution.

• Validity of Information: Whether an information charging libel published in an unofficial language, without including a copy of the libelous article but only a translation into Spanish, is valid.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Whether Exhibits A, B, C, and D are admissible as evidence for the prosecution in the libel cases.
• Abuse of Discretion and Mandamus: Whether the respondent judge's refusal to admit the exhibits amounted to an abuse of discretion correctable by mandamus.
• Jurisdiction: Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for a writ of mandamus to compel a Court of First Instance to permit the attorney of a litigant to examine the entire written communication when part of the same has been introduced in evidence by the other party.

• Validity of Information: Yes. An information for libel published in a non-official language is valid even if the libelous article is not quoted in it but only a Spanish translation is included.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Yes. The general rules on admissibility apply; the copies of the weekly and its translation constitute the best evidence of the libel charged.
• Abuse of Discretion and Mandamus: Yes. The refusal to admit the evidence amounted to an abuse of discretion controllable by mandamus.
• Jurisdiction: Yes. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for mandamus under the doctrine in Orient Insurance Co. vs. Revilla and Teal Motor Co.

• Validity of Information: The general rule, as stated in United States vs. Eguia and Lozano, 38 Phil. 857, requires that a complaint or information for libel set out the particular defamatory words as published; a statement of their substance and effect is usually insufficient. That rule, however, admits exceptions, including cases where the libel is published in a non-official language. When defamation is published in a foreign tongue, it is proper and generally necessary to set out the communication as originally made with an exact translation; under liberal practice rules, it may be unnecessary to set out the foreign language if the foreign publication is alleged with a translation attached. Because the article was published in Pampango, not in English or Spanish, a Spanish translation in the information sufficed. The exception was especially justified for languages using characters different from those used in official languages. Thus, the information was valid.

• Admissibility of Evidence: The general rules on admissibility of evidence apply to libel or slander. Evidence must be relevant and not hearsay. The best-evidence rule required production of the best evidence of the libel charged. The copies of the weekly where the libelous article was published, together with its translation, constituted that best evidence. The newspaper itself is the best evidence of an article published in it. The trial court therefore erred in excluding Exhibits A, B, C, and D.

• Abuse of Discretion and Mandamus: The respondent judge had discretion to admit or reject evidence, but the refusal to admit the exhibits in this case amounted to an abuse of that discretion. Such abuse may be controlled by the Supreme Court through mandamus proceedings.

• Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for a writ of mandamus to compel a Court of First Instance to permit the attorney of a litigant to examine the entire written communication when part of the same has been introduced in evidence by the other party, as held in Orient Insurance Co. vs. Revilla and Teal Motor Co., 54 Phil. 919.

• Exception to the General Rule on Libel Informations for Non-Official Languages — A complaint or information for libel must ordinarily set out the particular defamatory words as published; a statement of their substance and effect is usually insufficient. When the defamation is published in a non-official or foreign language, however, it is sufficient to allege the foreign publication and attach a translation, such as a Spanish translation. The Court applied this exception because the article was in Pampango, not in an official language, and upheld the information despite the absence of the original Pampango text.

• Admissibility of Evidence and the Best Evidence Rule in Libel — General rules on admissibility apply to libel or slander: evidence must be relevant and not hearsay. Under the best evidence rule, the copies of the newspaper containing the libelous article and its translation are the best evidence of the libel charged; the newspaper itself is the best evidence of an article published in it. The Court used this doctrine to hold that Exhibits A, B, C, and D should have been admitted.

• Mandamus to Correct Abuse of Discretion in Admitting Evidence — A trial judge has discretion to admit or reject evidence, but that discretion is not absolute. A refusal to admit evidence that amounts to an abuse of discretion may be controlled by the Supreme Court through mandamus. The Court found such abuse in the trial court's exclusion of the newspaper copies and translation.

• Jurisdiction over Mandamus to Examine Entire Written Communication — The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for a writ of mandamus to compel a Court of First Instance to permit the attorney of a litigant to examine the entire written communication when part of the same has been introduced in evidence by the other party. The Court cited Orient Insurance Co. vs. Revilla and Teal Motor Co. in support.

• "The general rule is that the complaint or information for libel must set out the particular defamatory words as published, and a statement of their substance and effect is usually considered insufficient." — This states the general pleading requirement for libel informations, which the Court then recognized was subject to an exception for non-official languages.
• "If the libelous article had been published in one of our official languages, English or Spanish, it would have been necessary to follow the general rule; but since the article in question was published in the Pampango dialect, it is sufficient to insert a Spanish translation in the information." — This is the ratio for holding the information valid despite not quoting the Pampango article.
• "The newspaper itself is the best evidence of an article published in it." — This states the best-evidence basis for admitting the copies of Ing Magumasid.
• "The respondent judge undoubtedly has discretion to admit or reject the evidence offered by the fiscal; but in the instant case his refusal to admit such evidence amounts to an abuse of that discretion, which may be controlled by this court by means of mandamus proceedings." — This is the ratio for issuing mandamus to correct the trial court's refusal to admit the exhibits.

• United States vs. Eguia and Lozano, 38 Phil. 857 — Cited for the general rule that a libel information must set out the particular defamatory words as published and that a statement of substance and effect is usually insufficient; the Court treated the rule as subject to an exception for non-official languages.
• Bond vs. Central Bank of Georgia, 2 Ga. 92 — Cited for the proposition that the newspaper itself is the best evidence of an article published in it, supporting admission of the copies of Ing Magumasid.
• Orient Insurance Co. vs. Revilla and Teal Motor Co., 54 Phil. 919 — Cited for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to entertain mandamus to compel a Court of First Instance to permit a litigant's attorney to examine the entire written communication when part has been introduced in evidence by the other party.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Romualdez, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.