gma and binay case

7/25/2019 Gma and Binay Case

1/22

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 146848 : October 17, 2006]

GMA NE!OR", INC. #$or%er&' ()o*) + -RE/IC ROADCASING SSEM, INC.-3 +) RE

VIDA, Petitioners, v.5ES/S G. /SOS, M.D., EODORA R. OCAMO, M.D., VICOR V./ENCAMINO, M.D., CESAR . VIA/ERE, M.D., AREMIO . ORDINARIO, M.D., +) VIRGIIOC. ASIIO, M.D., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

GARCIA,J.:

Assailed and sought to be set aside in this Petition for Review 1under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is thedecision2dated January 25, 21 of the Court of A!!eals "CA# in CA-G.R. CV No. 52240which reversed andset aside an earlier decision$of the Regional %rial Court "R%C# of &a'ati City, (ranch )4, in Civil Case *o. ++1-52, an action for daages thereat coenced by the herein res!ondents Jesus /. (ustos, %eodora R.0ca!o, ictor . (uencaino, Cesar . illafuerte, Arteio %. 0rdinario and irgilio C. (asilio, all !hysiciansby !rofession and the forer chairan and ebers, res!ectively, of the (oard of &edicine, against theherein !etitioners /&A *etwor', 3nc. "forerly Re!ublic (roasting yste, 3nc.# and Rey idal.

%he facts

3n August 1-+6, the (oard of &edicine of the Professional Regulation Coission "PRC# conducted the!hysicians7 licensure e8ainations. 0ut of the total two thousand eight hundred thirtyfive "2,+$5#e8ainees who too' the e8ainations, nine hundred fortyone "-41# failed.

0n ebruary 1, 1-++, a certain Abello and over two hundred other unsuccessful e8ainees filed a Petitionfor &andaus before the R%C of &anila to co!el the PRC and the board of edical e8ainers to rechec'and reevaluate the test !a!ers. As alleged, ista'es in the counting of the total scores and erroneouschec'ing of answers to test 9uestions vitiated the results of the e8ainations.

As news writer and re!orter of !etitioner /&A *etwor', 3nc. assigned to gather news fro courts, aongother beats, its co!etitioner Rey idal covered the filing of the mandamus!etition. After securing a co!y ofthe !etition, idal co!osed and narrated the news coverage for the ten o7cloc' evening news edition of/&A7s Channel 6 :eadline *ews.

%he te8t of the news re!ort,4as drafted and narrated by idal and which /&A *etwor', 3nc. aired andtelevised on ebruary 1, 1-++, runs

oe 226 e8ainees in the last August Physician ;icensure today went to the Presiding Judge to also as' for a s!ecial raffling of the caseconsidering that the ne8t !hysicians e8ainations have been scheduled for ebruary =1-++> 7. %hey said thatthe gross, assive, ha!ha?ard, whisical and ca!ricious chec'ing that ust have been going on for yearsshould now be sto!!ed once and for all.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt1


2/22

%he last e8aination was conducted last August at the PRC central offices, the ar


3/22

3n a decision)dated 0ctober 16, 1--5, the trial court found for the herein !etitioners, as defendantsa quo,on the !ostulate that the idal telecast re!ort in 9uestion is !rivileged. Bis!ositively, the decision reads

:


4/22

3*Bet9t9o) $9&e b' te bo+r $&=)(er =)o=bte&' cre+te +) 9%>re9o)

t+t te +9 e%o)tr+t9o) *+ re&+te to te $9&9) o$ te c+e b' te bo+r $&=)(er. e9)ert9o) o$ te $9&% $oot+e *9to=t te *or ;$9&e et9t9o)er], thus, in wanton andrec'less disregard of their duty to the !ublic to render a fair, accurate and true re!ort of the sae.

8 8 8

%he findings of alice on the !art of the =!etitioners> should not be construed as a censure to the freedoof the !ress since their right to render a news on atters of !ublic concern was not the issue but rather theisre!resentation ade when they inserted a fil footage of the doctors7 deonstration which created awrong i!ression of the real situation. @n9uestionably, the news re!orting, interview and the showing of=the flun'ers> filing the case were fair re!orting. At this !oint, that would have been sufficient to infor the!ublic of what really ha!!ened. :owever, for reasons only 'nown to =!etitioners>, te' 9)erte te?=et9o)e $9&% $oot+e *9c + )o re&+t9o) to te )e* be9) re>orte. ere 9 )o oter
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt10


5/22

co)c&=9o) t+t tere *+ %ot9re9o) t+t te 9=e +&o +$$ecte te octor*9c $orce te% to e%o)tr+te. 888. "ords in brac'ets su!!lied#.

ith the view we ta'e of this case, given the !arallel unchallenged deterination of the two courts belowthat what !etitioner idal re!orted was !rivileged, the award of daages is untenable as it is !arado8ical.

An award of daages under the !reises !resu!!oses the coission of an act aounting to defaatoryi!utation or libel, which, in turn, !resu!!oses alice. ;ibel is the !ublic and alicious i!utation toanother of a discreditable act or condition tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or conte!t of a naturalor uridical !erson.11;iability for libel attaches !resent the following eleents "a# an allegation ori!utation of a discreditable act or condition concerning anotherF "b# !ublication of the i!utationF "c#identity of the !erson defaedF and "d# e8istence of alice.12

&alice or illwill in libel ust either be !roven "alice in fact# or ay be ta'en for granted in view of thegrossness of the i!utation "alice in law#. &alice, as we wrote in 'rillante v. Court o% Appeals,1$is a terused to indicate the fact that the offender is !ro!ted by !ersonal illwill or s!ite and s!ea's not inres!onse to duty, but erely to inure the re!utation of the !erson defaed. &alice i!lies an intention todo ulterior and unustifiable har. 3t is !resent when it is shown that the author of the libelous ordefaatory rear's ade the sae with 'nowledge that it was false or with rec'less disregard as to thetruth or falsity thereof.

3n the instant case, there can be no 9uibbling that what !etitioner cor!oration aired in its Channel 6 in theebruary 1, 1-++ late evening newscast was basically a narration of the contents of the aforeentioned!etition for mandamus. %his is borne by the records of the case and was li'ewise the finding of the trialcourt. And the narration had for its subect nothing ore than the !ur!orted ista'es in !a!er chec'ing andthe errors in the counting and tallying of the scores in the August 1-+6 !hysicians7 licensure e8ainationsattributable to the then chairan and ebers of the (oard of &edicine.

Conceding hy!othetically that soe failing s!ecifically against the res!ondents had been ascribed in thatnews telecast, it bears to stress that not all i!utations of soe discreditable act or oission, if there beany, are considered alicious thus su!!lying the ground for actionable libel. or, although every defaatoryi!utation is !resued to be alicious, the !resu!tion does not e8ist in atters considered !rivileged. 3nfine, the !rivilege destroys the !resu!tion.

Privileged atters ay be absolute or 9ualified.14Absolutely !rivileged atters are not actionable regardlessof the e8istence of alice in fact. 3n absolutely !rivileged counications, the malaor"ona %idesof theauthor is of no oent as the occasion !rovides an absolute bar to the action.


6/22

%his brings us to the ore i!ortant 9uestion of whether or not the co!laining res!ondents, in their effortto reove the !rotection accorded by the !rivilege, succeeded in establishing illwill and alice on the !artof the !etitioners in their televised !resentation of the news re!ort in dis!ute, thus coitting libel.

%he CA, ado!ting the res!ondents7 line on the atter of alice, resolved the 9uestion in the affirative. Asthe CA noted, the insertion of an old fil footage showing doctors wearing blac' arbands anddeonstrating at the P/:, without the acco!anying charactergenerated words E%ile video,E created the

i!ression that other doctors were su!!orting and sy!athi?ing with the unsuccessful e8ainees.

%he Court disagrees.

Contrary to the CA7s findings, the identifying charactergenerated words E%ile videoE a!!eared to have beensu!eri!osed on screen, doubtless to disabuse the inds of televiewers of the idea that a !articular footageis current. 3n the words of the trial court, the !hrase E%ile videoE was Eindicated on screen purposel$ toprevent misrepresentation so as not to con%use te vie(in! pu"lic.E16%he trial court added the observationthat Ethe use of file footage in % news re!orting is a standard !ractice.E1+At any rate, the absence of theacco!anying charactergenerated words E%ile videoE would not change the legal situation insofar as the!rivileged nature of the audiovideo !ublication co!lained of is concerned. or, with the view we ta'e of thestate of things, the video footage was not libel in disguiseF standing without acco!anying sounds or voices,it was eaningless, or, at least, conveyed nothing derogatory in nature.

And lest it be overloo'ed, !ersonal hurt or ebarrassent or offense, even if real, is not autoaticallye9uivalent to defaation. %he law against defaation !rotects one7s interest in ac9uiring, retaining andenoying a re!utation Eas good as one7s character and conduct warrantE in the counity.1-Clearly then, itis the counity, not !ersonal standards, which shall be ta'en into account in evaluating any allegations oflibel and any clais for daages on account thereof.

o it is that in 'ulletin Pu"lisin! Corp. v. Noel,2we held

%he ter EcounityE ay of course be drawn as narrowly or as broadly as the user of the ter and his!ur!oses ay re9uire. %he reason why for !ur!oses of the law on libel the ore general eaning ofcounity ust be ado!ted in the ascertainent of relevant standards, is rooted dee! in our constitutionallaw. %hat reason relates to the fundaental !ublic interest in the !rotection and !rootion of free s!eechand e8!ression, an interest shared by all ebers of the body !olitic and territorial counity. Anews!a!er should be free to re!ort on events and develo!ents in which the !ublic has a legitiateinterest, wherever they ay ta'e !lace within the nation and as well in the outside world, with iniufear of being hauled to court by one grou! or another "however defined in sco!e# on criinal or civil chargesfor libel, so long as the news!a!er res!ects and 'ee! within the general counity. Any other rule ondefaation, in a national counity li'e ours with any, diverse cultural, social, religious an othergrou!ings, is li'ely to !roduce an unwholesoe Echilling effectE u!on the constitutionally !rotectedo!erations of the !ress and other instruents of inforation and education.

3t cannot be overe!hasi?ed furtherore that the showing of the 1-+2 fil footage, assuing forarguent that it contained deeaning features, was actually acco!anied or siultaneously voiced over bythe narration of the news re!ort lifted fro the filing of the mandamus!etition. As a!tly !ut by the!etitioners without controversion fro the res!ondents, there was nothing in the news re!ort to indicate anintent to utili?e such old footages to create another news story beyond what was re!orted.21

%o be sure, actual alice, as a conce!t in libel, cannot !lausibly be deduced fro the fact of !etitioners

having dubbed in their ebruary 1, 1-++ telecast an old unrelated video footage. As it were, nothing in thesaid footage, be it ta'en in isolation or in relation to the narrated idal re!ort, can be viewed as re!utationi!eachingF it did not contain an attac', let alone a false one, on the honesty, character or integrity or li'e!ersonal 9ualities of any of the res!ondents, who were not even naed or s!ecifically identified in thetelecast. 3t has been said that if the atter is notper selibelous, alice cannot be inferred fro the erefact of !ublication.22And as records tend to indicate, the !etitioners, !articularly idal, do not !ersonally'now or had dealings with any of the res!ondents. %he Court thus !erceives no reason or otive on the !artof either !etitioner for alice. %he res!ondents too had failed to substantiate by !re!onderant evidence that!etitioners were aniated by a desire to inflict the unustifiable har or at least to !lace the in adiscoforting light.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006octoberdecisions.php?id=1404#fnt22


7/22

urely, the !etitioners7 failure, !erha!s even their indis!osition, to obtain and telecast the res!ondents7 sideis not an indicia of alice.


8/22

NARESBSANIAGO,J.:

%his Petition for Review assails the *oveber 22, 24 Becision1of the Court of A!!eals in CA/.R. P *o.65-+-, which affired the Resolutions dated July 2, 222and January +, 2$$of the ecretary of Justicereversing the &a'ati City Prosecutor7s finding of !robable cause against !rivate res!ondents and orderingthe withdrawal of the inforation for libel filed in court against the, as well as the *oveber 25, 25Resolution,4denying !etitioner7sKK otion for reconsideration.

3n the A!ril 1521, 21 issue of Pino$ +imes ,pecial dition, an article entitled EA;GA


9/22

0n July 2, 22, then Acting Justice ecretary &erceditas *. /utierre?12reversed the City Prosecutor7sfindings and directed the withdrawal of the inforation filed in court.1$


10/22

%he eleents of !ublication and identity of the !erson defaed are !resent in this case. %hus, in resolvingthe issue at hand, we liit our discussion on whether !aragra!h 25 of the subect article contains the twoother eleents of libel, to wit "a# i!utation of a discreditable act or condition to another, i.e., whether the!aragra!h is defaatoryF and "b# e8istence of alice.

3n &VR, Pu". /nc. v. /slamic a1(a Council o% te Pils. /nc.,21we defined defaatory language in thiswise

Befaation, which includes libel and slander, eans the offense of inuring a !erson7s character, fae orre!utation through false and alicious stateents. 3t is that whichte) to 9)=re re>=t+t9o) or to9%9)9 te etee%, re>ect, oo *9&& or co)$9e)ce 9) te >&+9)t9$$ or to ec9te ero+tor'

$ee&9) or o>9)9o) +bo=t te >&+9)t9$$. 3t is the !ublication of anything which is 9)=r9o= to te oo)+%e or re>=t+t9o) o$ +)oter or te) to br9) 9% 9)to 9re>=te. Befaation is an invasion ofa relational interestsince 9t 9)


11/22

%o 9ualify under the first category of a conditionally or 9ualifiedly !rivileged counication, !aragra!h 25ust fulfill the following eleents "1# the !erson who ade the counication had a legal, oral, or socialduty to a'e the counication, or at least, had an interest to !rotect, which interest ay either be hisown or of the one to who it is adeF "2# the counication is addressed to an officer or a board, orsu!erior, having soe interest or duty in the atter, and who has the !ower to furnish the !rotectionsoughtF and "$# the stateents in the counication are ade in good faith and without alice.24

hichever way we view it, we cannot discern a legal, oral, or social duty in !ublishing Joanna7s status asan ado!ted daughter. *either is there any !ublic interest res!ecting her !urchases of !anties worthP1,.. hether she indeed bought those !anties is not soething that the !ublic can afford any!rotection against. ith this bac'dro!, it is obvious that !rivate res!ondents7 only otive in inserting!aragra!h 25 in the subect article is to ebarrass Joanna before the reading !ublic.

3n addition, the clai that !aragra!h 25 constitutes !rivileged counication is a atter of defense,25whichis can only be !roved in a fullblown trial. 3t is eleentary that Ea !reliinary investigation is not theoccasion for the full and e8haustive dis!lay of the !arties7 evidence. 3t is for the !resentation of suchevidence only as ay engender a wellgrounded belief that an offense has been coitted and the accusedis !robably guilty thereof.E2)

&oreover, under Article $54 of the Revised Penal Code, every defaatory i!utation is !resued to be

alicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and ustifiable otive for a'ing it is shown. 3t is thusincubent u!on !rivate res!ondents to !rove that Egood intention and ustifiable otiveE attended the!ublication of the subect article.

!EREORE, the !etition is GRANED. %he Court of A!!eals7 Becision in CA/.R. P *o. 65-+- dated*oveber 22, 24, u!holding the Justice ecretary7s Resolutions dated July 2, 22 and January +, 2$,ordering the withdrawal of the inforation filed against !rivate res!ondents /enivi . actao and icente /.%irol and the Resolution dated *oveber 25, 25, denying !etitioner7s otion for reconsideration,are REVERSED AND SE ASIDE. %he City Prosecutor of &a'ati City isORDEREDto continue and !roceedwith the case for libel against !rivate res!ondents icente /. %irol and /enivi . actao.

SO ORDERED.

(efore the Court are si8 !etitions challenging the constitutionality of Re!ublic Act *o. -$62 "RA -$62#, EAnAct to ecure the tate and Protect our Peo!le fro %erroris,E otherwise 'nown as the :uan ecurity Actof 26,1cra1awsigned into law on &arch ), 26.

ollowing the effectivity of RA -$62 on July 15, 26,2cra1aw!etitioner outhern :eis!here


12/22

Rita (aua and Rey Claro Casabre filed a !etition for certiorari and !rohibition doc'eted as /.R. *o.16+5+1.

0n August ), 26, ara!atan and its alliance eber organi?ations :ustisya, Besa!arecidos, aahan ngga


13/22

constitutionality ust be raised at the earliest o!!ortunityF and "d# the issue of constitutionality ust be thelis ota of the case.1chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

3n the !resent case, the disal absence of the first two re9uisites, which are the ost essential, renders thediscussion of the last two su!erfluous.

Petitioners lac' locus standi

;ocus standi or legal standing re9uires a !ersonal sta'e in the outcoe of the controversy as to assure thatconcrete adverseness which shar!ens the !resentation of issues u!on which the court so largely de!ends forilluination of difficult constitutional 9uestions.11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Ana' &indanao Party;ist /rou! v. %he


14/22

(AGA*, /A(R3


15/22

&ore i!ortant, there are other !arties not before the Court with direct and s!ecific interests in the9uestions being raised.22cra1aw0f recent develo!ent is the filing of the first case for !roscri!tion under ection162$cra1awof RA -$62 by the Be!artent of Justice before the (asilan Regional %rial Court against the Abu ayyaf/rou!.24cra1awPetitionerorgani?ations do not in the least allege any lin' to the Abu ayyaf /rou!.

oe !etitioners atte!t, in vain though, to show the iinence of a !rosecution under RA -$62 byalluding to !ast rebellion charges against the.

3n ;adlad v. elasco,25cra1awthe Court ordered the disissal of rebellion charges filed in 2) against then Party;ist Re!resentatives Cris!in (eltran and Rafael &ariano of Ana'!awis, ;i?a &a?a of /A(R3


16/22

RA -$62 is a !enal statute and does not even !rovide for any a!!ro!riation fro Congress for itsi!leentation, while none of the individual !etitionerciti?ens has alleged any direct and !ersonal interestin the i!leentation of the law.

3t bears to stress that generali?ed interests, albeit acco!anied by the assertion of a !ublic right, do notestablish locus standi.


17/22

9ualified by the re9uireent that there ust be sufficient facts to enable the Court to intelligently adudicatethe issues.$+chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ery recently, the @ u!ree Court, in :older v. :uanitarian ;aw Proect,$-cra1awallowed the !reenforceentreview of a criinal statute, challenged on vagueness grounds, since !laintiffs faced a Ecredible threat of!rosecutionE and Eshould not be re9uired to await and undergo a criinal !rosecution as the sole eans ofsee'ing relief.E4cra1aw%he !laintiffs therein filed an action before a federal court to assail the constitutionality ofthe aterial su!!ort statute, 1+ @..C. 2$$-( "a# "1#,41cra1aw!roscribing the !rovision of aterial su!!ort toorgani?ations declared by the ecretary of tate as foreign terrorist organi?ations. %hey claied that theyintended to !rovide su!!ort for the huanitarian and !olitical activities of two such organi?ations.

Prevailing Aerican uris!rudence allows an adudication on the erits when an antici!atory !etition clearlyshows that the challenged !rohibition forbids the conduct or activity that a !etitioner see's to do, as therewould then be a usticiable controversy.42chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

@nli'e the !laintiffs in :older, however, herein !etitioners have failed to show that the challenged !rovisionsof RA -$62 forbid constitutionally !rotected conduct or activity that they see' to do. *o deonstrable threathas been established, uch less a real and e8isting one.

Petitioners obscure allegations of s!oradic EsurveillanceE and su!!osedly being tagged as Ecounist frontsEin no way a!!ro8iate a credible threat of !rosecution. ro these allegations, the Court is being lured torender an advisory o!inion, which is not its function.4$chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ithout any usticiable controversy, the !etitions have becoe !leas for declaratory relief, over which theCourt has no original urisdiction. %hen again, declaratory actions characteri?ed by Edouble contingency,Ewhere both the activity the !etitioners intend to underta'e and the antici!ated reaction to it of a !ublicofficial are erely theori?ed, lie beyond udicial review for lac' of ri!eness.44chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

%he !ossibility of abuse in the i!leentation of RA -$62 does not avail to ta'e the !resent !etitions out ofthe real of the surreal and erely iagined. uch !ossibility is not !eculiar to RA -$62 since the e8erciseof any !ower granted by law ay be abused.45cra1awAllegations of abuse ust be anchored on real events beforecourts ay ste! in to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally deandable andenforceable.

A $+c9+& 9)te

Petitioners assail for being intrinsically vague and i!erissibly broad the definition of the crie ofterroris4)cra1awunder RA -$62 in that ters li'e Ewides!read and e8traordinary fear and !anic aong the!o!ulaceE and Ecoerce the governent to give in to an unlawful deandE are nebulous, leaving lawenforceent agencies with no standard to easure the !rohibited acts.

Res!ondents, through the 0/, counter that the doctrines of voidforvagueness and overbreadth find noa!!lication in the !resent case since these doctrines a!!ly only to free s!eech casesF and that RA -$62regulates conduct, not s!eech.

or a uris!rudentially guided understanding of these doctrines, it is i!erative to outline the schools ofthought on whether the voidforvagueness and overbreadth doctrines are e9ually a!!licable grounds toassail a !enal statute.

Res!ondents inter!ret recent uris!rudence as slanting toward the idea of liiting the a!!lication of the twodoctrines to free s!eech cases. %hey !articularly cite Romualde v. on. ,andi!an"a$an46cra1awand strada v.,andi!an"a$an.4+chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

%he Court clarifies.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt44http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt44http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt45http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt45http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt46http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt46http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt44http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt45http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt46http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt48


18/22

At issue in Romualde v. ,andi!an"a$an was whether the word EinterveneE in ection 54-cra1awof the Anti/raftand Corru!t Practices Act was intrinsically vague and i!erissibly broad. %he Court stated that Etheoverbreadth and the vagueness doctrines have s!ecial a!!lication only to frees!eech cases,E and are Enota!!ro!riate for testing the validity of !enal statutes.E5cra1aw3t added that, at any rate, the challenged !rovision,under which the therein !etitioner was charged, is not vague.51chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

hile in the subse9uent case of Romualde v. Commission on lections,52cra1awthe Court stated that a facialinvalidation of criinal statutes is not a!!ro!riate, it nonetheless !roceeded to conduct a vaguenessanalysis, and concluded that the therein subect election offense5$cra1awunder the oters Registration Act of1--), with which the therein !etitioners were charged, is couched in !recise language.54chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

%he two Romualdecases rely heavily on the e!arate 0!inion55cra1awof Justice icente . &endo?a inthe stradacase, where the Court found the AntiPlunder ;aw "Re!ublic Act *o. 6+# clear and free froabiguity res!ecting the definition of the crie of !lunder.

%he !osition ta'en by Justice &endo?a in stradarelates these two doctrines to the conce!t of a EfacialEinvalidation as o!!osed to an Easa!!liedE challenge. :e basically !ostulated that allegations that a !enalstatute is vague and overbroad do not ustify a facial review of its validity. %he !ertinent !ortion of theConcurring 0!inion of Justice &endo?a, which was 9uoted at length in the ain hen statutes regulate or !roscribes!eech and no readily a!!arent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in asingle !rosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally !rotected e8!ression is deeedto ustify allowing attac's on overly broad statutes with no re9uireent that the !erson a'ing the attac'deonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow s!ecificity.E %he!ossible har to society in !eritting soe un!rotected s!eech to go un!unished is outweighed by the!ossibility that the !rotected s!eech of others ay be deterred and !erceived grievances left to festerbecause of !ossible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.

%his rationale does not a!!ly to !enal statutes. Criinal statutes have general in terroremeffect resultingfro their very e8istence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the tate ay well be!revented fro enacting laws against socially harful conduct. 3n the area of criinal law, the law cannot

ta'e chances as in the area of free s!eech.

%he overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have s!ecial a!!lication only to free s!eech cases. %hey areina!t for testing the validity of !enal statutes. As the @.. u!ree Court !ut it, in an o!inion by ChiefJustice Rehn9uist, Ewe have not recogni?ed an 7overbreadth7 doctrine outside the liited conte8t of the irstAendent.E 3n 'roadric) v. )laoma, the Court ruled that Eclais of facial overbreadth have beenentertained in cases involving statutes which, by their ters, see' to regulate only s!o'en wordsE and,again, that Eoverbreadth clais, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invo'ed against ordinarycriinal laws that are sought to be a!!lied to !rotected conduct.E or this reason, it has been held that Eafacial challenge to a legislative act is the ost difficult challenge to ount successfully, since the challengerust establish that no set of circustances e8ists under which the Act would be valid.E As for the vaguenessdoctrine, it is said that a litigant ay challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all its !ossiblea!!lications. EA !laintiff who engages in soe conduct that is clearly !roscribed cannot co!lain of thevagueness of the law as a!!lied to the conduct of others.E

3n su, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are analytical tools develo!ed fortesting Eon their facesE statutes in free s!eech cases or, as they are called in Aerican law, irst Aendentcases. %hey cannot be ade to do service when what is involved is a criinal statute. ith res!ect to suchstatute, the established rule is that Eone to who a!!lication of a statute is constitutional will not be heardto attac' the statute on the ground that i!liedly it ight also be ta'en as a!!lying to other !ersons orother situations in which its a!!lication ight be unconstitutional.E As has been !ointed out, Evaguenesschallenges in the irst Aendent conte8t, li'e overbreadth challenges ty!ically !roduce facial invalidation,while statutes found vague as a atter of due !rocess ty!ically are invalidated =only> 7as a!!lied7 to a
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt49http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt49http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt50http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt50http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt51http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt51http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt52http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt52http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt53http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt53http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt54http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt54http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt55http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt55http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt49http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt50http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt51http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt52http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt53http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt54http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt55


19/22

!articular defendant.E Conse9uently, there is no basis for !etitioner7s clai that this Court review the AntiPlunder ;aw on its face and in its entirety.

3ndeed, Eon its faceE invalidation of statutes results in stri'ing the down entirely on the ground that theyight be a!!lied to !arties not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally !rotected. 3t constitutesa de!arture fro the case and controversy re9uireent of the Constitution and !erits decisions to beade without concrete factual settings and in sterile abstract conte8ts. (ut, as the @.. u!ree Court!ointed out in *oun!er v. arris

=%>he tas' of analy?ing a !ro!osed statute, !in!ointing its deficiencies, and re9uiring correction of thesedeficiencies before the statute is !ut into effect, is rarely if ever an a!!ro!riate tas' for the udiciary. %hecobination of the relative reoteness of the controversy, the i!act on the legislative !rocess of the reliefsought, and above all the s!eculative and aor!hous nature of the re9uired linebyline analysis of detailedstatutes, . . . ordinarily results in a 'ind of case that is wholly unsatisfactory for deciding constitutional9uestions, whichever way they ight be decided.

or these reasons, Eon its faceE invalidation of statutes has been described as Eanifestly strong edicine,Eto be e!loyed Es!aringly and only as a last resort,E and is generally disfavored. 3n deterining theconstitutionality of a statute, therefore, its !rovisions which are alleged to have been violated in a case ustbe e8ained in the light of the conduct with which the defendant is charged.5)cra1aw"@nderscoring su!!lied.#

%he confusion a!!arently stes fro the interloc'ing relation of the overbreadth and vagueness doctrinesas grounds for a facial or asa!!lied challenge against a !enal statute "under a clai of violation of due!rocess of law# or a s!eech regulation "under a clai of abridgeent of the freedo of s!eech and cognaterights#.

%o be sure, the doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine of overbreadth do not o!erate on the sae !lane.

A statute or act suffers fro the defect of vagueness when it lac's co!rehensible standards that en ofcoon intelligence ust necessarily guess at its eaning and differ as to its a!!lication. 3t is re!ugnant tothe Constitution in two res!ects "1# it violates due !rocess for failure to accord !ersons, es!ecially the!arties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoidF and "2# it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretionin carrying out its !rovisions and becoes an arbitrary fle8ing of the /overnent

uscle.56cra1aw%he overbreadth doctrine, eanwhile, decrees that a governental !ur!ose to control or !reventactivities constitutionally subect to state regulations ay not be achieved by eans which swee!unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of !rotected freedos.5+chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

As distinguished fro the vagueness doctrine, the overbreadth doctrine assues that individuals willunderstand what a statute !rohibits and will accordingly refrain fro that behavior, even though soe of itis !rotected.5-chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A EfacialE challenge is li'ewise different fro an Easa!!liedE challenge.

Bistinguished fro an asa!!lied challenge which considers only e8tant facts affecting real litigants,afacial invalidation is an e8aination of the entire law, !in!ointing its flaws and defects, not only on thebasis of its actual o!eration to the !arties, but also on the assu!tion or !rediction that its very e8istence

ay cause others not before the court to refrain fro constitutionally !rotected s!eech or activities.)chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Justice &endo?a accurately !hrased the subtitle)1cra1awin his concurring o!inion that the vagueness andoverbreadth doctrines, as !rounds %or a %acial callen!e, are not a!!licable to !enal laws. A litigant cannotthus successfully ount a facial challenge against a criinal statute on either vagueness or overbreadthgrounds.

%he allowance of a facial challenge in free s!eech cases is ustified by the ai to avert the Echilling effectE on!rotected s!eech, the e8ercise of which should not at all ties be abridged. )2cra1awAs reflected earlier, this
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt56http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt56http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt56http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt57http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt57http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt58http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt58http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt59http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt59http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt60http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt60http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt61http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt61http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt62http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt62http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt56http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt57http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt58http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt59http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt60http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt61http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt62


20/22

rationale is ina!!licable to !lain !enal statutes that generally bear an E in terroremeffectE in deterringsocially harful conduct. 3n fact, the legislature ay even forbid and !enali?e acts forerly consideredinnocent and lawful, so long as it refrains fro diinishing or dissuading the e8ercise of constitutionally!rotected rights.)$chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

%he Court reiterated that there are Ecritical liitations by which a criinal statute ay be challengedE andEunderscored that an onitsface invalidation of !enal statutes 8 8 8 ay not be allowed.E)4chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

=%>he rule established in our urisdiction is, only statutes on free s!eech, religious freedo, and otherfundaental rights ay be facially challenged. @nder no case ay ordinary !enal statutes be subected to afacial challenge. %he rationale is obvious. 3f a facial challenge to a !enal statute is !eritted, the!rosecution of cries ay be ha!ered. *o !rosecution would be !ossible. A strong criticis againste!loying a facial challenge in the case of !enal statutes, if the sae is allowed, would effectively goagainst the grain of the doctrinal re9uireent of an e8isting and concrete controversy before udicial !oweray be a!!ro!riately e8ercised. A facial challenge against a !enal statute is, at best, aor!hous ands!eculative. 3t would, essentially, force the court to consider third !arties who are not before it. As 3 havesaid in y o!!osition to the allowance of a facial challenge to attac' !enal statutes, such a test will i!airthe tates ability to deal with crie. 3f warranted, there would be nothing that can hinder an accused frodefeating the tates !ower to !rosecute on a ere showing that, as a!!lied to third !arties, the !enalstatute is vague or overbroad, notwithstanding that the law is clear as a!!lied to hi.)5cra1aw">&9c+t9o) o$ te o&9c+b&e o)&' to $ree

>eec c+e.

(y its nature, the overbreadth doctrine has to necessarily a!!ly a facial ty!e of invalidation in order to !lotareas of !rotected s!eech, inevitably alost always under situations not before the court, that arei!erissibly swe!t by the substantially overbroad regulation. 0therwise stated, a statute cannot be!ro!erly analy?ed for being substantially overbroad if the court confines itself only to facts as a!!lied to thelitigants.

%he ost distinctive feature of the overbreadth techni9ue is that it ar's an e8ce!tion to soe of the usual

rules of constitutional litigation. 0rdinarily, a !articular litigant clais that a statute is unconstitutional asa!!lied to hi or herF if the litigant !revails, the courts carve away the unconstitutional as!ects of the lawby invalidating its i!ro!er a!!lications on a case to case basis. &oreover, challengers to a law are not!eritted to raise the rights of third !arties and can only assert their own interests. 3n overbreadth analysis,those rules give wayF challenges are !eritted to raise the rights of third !artiesF and the court invalidatesthe entire statute Eon its face,E not erelyEas a!!lied forE so that the overbroad law becoes unenforceableuntil a !ro!erly authori?ed court construes it ore narrowly. %he factor that otivates courts to de!art frothe noral adudicatory rules is the concern with the EchillingFE deterrent effect of the overbroad statute onthird !arties not courageous enough to bring suit. %he Court assues that an overbroad laws Everye8istence ay cause others not before the court to refrain fro constitutionally !rotected s!eech ore8!ression.E An overbreadth ruling is designed to reove that deterrent effect on the s!eech of those third!arties.))cra1aw"


21/22

Since a penal statute may only be assailed for being vague as applied to petitioners, aliitedvagueness analysis of the definition of EterrorisE in RA -$62 is legally i!erissible absent anactual oriinent charge against the

hile stradadid not a!!ly the overbreadth doctrine, it did not !reclude the o!eration of the vagueness teston the AntiPlunder ;aw as applied to the therein !etitioner, finding, however, that there was no basis toreview the law Eon its face and in its entirety.E62cra1aw3t stressed that Estatutes found vague as a matter o% dueprocessty!ically are invalidated only 7as a!!lied7 to a !articular defendant.E6$chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Aerican uris!rudence64cra1awinstructs that Evagueness challenges that do not involve the irst Aendentust be e8ained in light of the s!ecific facts of the case at hand and not with regard to the statute7s facialvalidity.E

or ore than 125 years, the @ u!ree Court has evaluated defendants clais that criinal statutes areunconstitutionally vague, develo!ing a doctrine hailed as Eaong the ost i!ortant guarantees of libertyunder law.E65chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

3n this urisdiction, the voidforvagueness doctrine asserted under the due !rocess clause has been utili?edin e8aining the constitutionality of criinal statutes. 3n at least three cases,6)cra1awthe Court brought thedoctrine into !lay in analy?ing an ordinance !enali?ing the non!ayent of unici!al ta8 on fish!onds, thecrie of illegal recruitent !unishable under Article 1$2"b# of the ;abor Code, and the vagrancy !rovisionunder Article 22 "2# of the Revised Penal Code. *otably, the !etitioners in these three cases, siilar tothose in the two Romualde and stradacases, were actually c+rewith the therein assailed !enalstatute, unli'e in the !resent case.

%here is no erit in the clai that RA -$62 regulates s!eech so as to !erit a facial analysis of its validity

ro the definition of the crie of terroris in the earlier cited ection $ of RA -$62, the following eleentsay be culled "1# the offender coits an act !unishable under any of the cited !rovisions of the RevisedPenal Code, or under any of the enuerated s!ecial !enal lawsF "2# the coission of the !redicate criesows and creates a condition of wides!read and e8traordinary fear and !anic aong the !o!ulaceF and "$#the offender is actuated by the desire to coerce the governent to give in to an unlawful deand.

3n insisting on a %acialchallenge on the invocation that the law !enali?es speec, !etitioners contend thatthe eleent of Eunlawful deandE in the definition of terroris66cra1awust necessarily be transitted throughsoe for of e8!ression !rotected by the free s!eech clause.

%he arguent does not !ersuade. hat the law see's to !enali?e is conduct, not s!eech.

(efore a charge for terroris ay be filed under RA -$62, there ust first be a !redicate crie actuallycoitted to trigger the o!eration of the 'ey 9ualifying !hrases in the other eleents of the crie,including the coercion of the governent to accede to an Eunlawful deand.E /iven the !resence of the firsteleent, any atte!t at singling out or highlighting the counicative co!onent of the !rohibition cannotrecategori?e the un!rotected conduct into a !rotected s!eech.

Petitioners notion on the transission of essage is entirely inaccurate, as it unduly focuses on ust one!article of an eleent of the crie. Alost every coission of a crie entails soe incing of words onthe !art of the offender li'e in declaring to launch overt criinal acts against a victi, in haggling on theaount of ranso or conditions, or in negotiating a deceitful transaction. An analogy in one @..case6+cra1awillustrated that the fact that the !rohibition on discriination in hiring on the basis of race will re9uirean e!loyer to ta'e down a sign reading Ehite A!!licants 0nlyE hardly eans that the law should beanaly?ed as one regulating s!eech rather than conduct.

@tterances not eleental but inevitably incidental to the doing of the criinal conduct alter neither theintent of the law to !unish socially harful conduct nor the essence of the whole act as conduct and not
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt72http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt72http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt73http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt73http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt74http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt74http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt75http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt75http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt76http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt76http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt77http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt77http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt78http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt78http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt72http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt73http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt74http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt75http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt76http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt77http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010octoberdecisions.php?id=304#fnt78


22/22

s!eech. %his holds true a fortiori in the !resent case where the e8!ression figures only as an inevitableincident of a'ing the eleent of coercion !erce!tible.

=3>t is true that the agreeents and course of conduct here were as in ost instances brought aboutthrough s!ea'ing or writing. (ut it has never been deeed an abridgeent of freedo of s!eech or !ress toa'e a course of conduct illegal erely because the conduct was, in part, initiated,evidenced, or carriedout "$ means o% lan!ua!e, either s!o'en, written, or !rinted. uch an e8!ansive inter!retation of theconstitutional guaranties of s!eech and !ress would a'e it !ractically i!ossible ever to enforce lawsagainst agreeents in restraint of trade as well as any other agreeents and cons!iracies deeedinurious to society.6-cra1aw"italics and underscoring su!!lied#

Certain 'inds of s!eech have been treated as un!rotected conduct, because they erely evidence a!rohibited conduct.+cra1awince s!eech is not involved here, the Court cannot heed the call for a facial analysis.

3* 3*

gma and binay case

Documents