BONIFACIO v. RTC OF MAKATI (2010)

FACTS: Private respondent Jessie John Gimenez (Gimenez) filed, on behalf of the Yuchengco family and of the Malayan Insurance Co. a criminal complaint before the RTC of Makati for 13 counts of libel under Art 355 in relation to 353 of the RPC against herein petitioners who are officers of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc (PEPCI). Pepci is a large group of disgruntled planholders of Pacific Plans, Inc (PPI) – a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp, also owned by Yuchengco Group of Companies (YGC) – who had previously purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but were unable to collect thereon due to liquidity concerns, filed for corporate rehabilitation with prayer of suspension of payments before the Makati RTC.

Decrying PPI’s refusal to honor its obligations under the educational plans, PEPCI sought to provide a forum by which the planholders could seek redress for their loss under the policies by maintaining a website with the address of www.pepcoalition.com. Gimenez alleged that the same website is easily accessible to the public. He further alleged that upon accessing the above-stated website in Makati on various dates, he was appaled to read numerous articles which maliciously and recklessly casued to be published by PEPCI containing highly derogatory statements and false accusations against the Yuchengco Family, YGC, and Malayan.

By resolution, the Makati Prosecutor’s Office filed 13 counts of libel after finding probable cause to indict the accused. Several of the accused appeled the Prosecutor’s resolution to the Secretary of Justice which reversed the finding of probable cause and directed the withdrawal of the information on the ground that internet libel, as a crime, is inexistent.

Petitioner then filed before the Makati RTC a Motion to Quash the information on the ground that it failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC. Citing Macasaet v people, petitioners maintained that the information failed to allege a particular place within the trial court’s jurisdiction where the subject article was printed and first published or that the offended party resided in Makati at the time the alleged defamatory material was printed and first published. The RTC of Makati, despite finding probable cause, quashed the information, but upon motion for reconsideration, allowed the prosecution to amend the information and the latter moved to have the amended information admitted. Petitioners once more moved to have the amended information quashed on the same ground but the RTC ruled that the information was sufficient in form.

ISSUE: W/N the RTC of Makati acted with grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended information despite the failure to allege that the libelous articles were printed and first published by the accused in Makati.

HELD: Yes, the venue of the action seeks to prevent undue harassment on the part of the publisher by the complainant who, if the amended information would be allowed, can file in all other locations where the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being accessed.

RATIO: Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitutes an essential element of jurisdiction. It is clear that the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited to only two places. 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense, and 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. The amended informationin the present case opted to lay the venue by availing of the second. RA 4363 amended Art 360 of the RPC which sets the venue for the filing of an information for a libel case. The old rule allows the filing of an action for libel in any jurisdiction where the libellous article was published or circulated. Clearly, the evil sought to be prevented by the amendment was the indiscriminate or arbitrary laying of the venue in libel cases in distant, isolated or far-flung areas, meant to accomplish nothing more than harass or intimidate an accused. To credit Gimenez’s premise of equating his first access to the defamatory article on petitioner’s website in Makati with printing and first publication would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Art 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and prevent. For the Court to hold that the amended information sufficiently vested jurisdiction in the courts of Makati simply because the defamatory article was accessed therein would open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other locations where the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being accessed.