Had Upon The Minds of The Readers, and They Not Having Been

Benguet Corporation v. Alexander B.
Fianza
Cyber Libel
Translation of Fianza’s post in tagalog:
a. Mga kapatid/kaibigan/kababayan, maawa naman kayo sa amin na matatabunan ng Dam 2
ng Benguet Corp na sanaý tulungan nyo kami. Salamat.
b. Pinanganak na po kami dito sa Itogon, sana naman huwag nyo kaming tabunan ng putik
at aalis na lang pag may nangyaring sakuna.
c. NCIP where is your IPRA Law, bakit nyo pinaboran ang BC.
d. EMB MGB NCIP pag natabunan na ang Itogon tsaka nyo na lng babawiin yong
ginawa/desisyon nyo. Maawa naman kayo.
The following are the elements of cyber libel, based on Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175, in relation
to Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code:
a. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary,

or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance.
1. Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means the offense of
injuring a person's character, fame or reputation through false
and malicious statements. It is that which tends to injure
reputation or to diminish esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence
in the plaintiff, or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about
the plaintiff. It is the publication of anything that is injurious to
the good name or reputation of another or tends to bring him
into disrepute. In determining whether certain utterances are
defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety
and taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning, as they
would naturally be understood by persons hearing (or reading, as
in libel) them, unless it appears that they were used and understood
in another sense.1
2. For the purpose of determining the meaning of any publication
alleged to be libelous "that construction must be adopted which
will give to the matter such a meaning as is natural and obvious in
the plain and ordinary sense in which the public would naturally
understand what was uttered. The published matter alleged to be
libelous must be construed as a whole. In applying these rules to
the language of an alleged libel, the court will disregard any subtle
or ingenious explanation offered by the publisher on being called
to account. The whole question being the effect the publication
had upon the minds of the readers, and they not having been
1
G.R. No. 184315 - Alfonso T. Yuchenco v. The Manila Chronicle Publishing corporation, et al.
assisted by the offered explanation in reading the article, it
comes too late to have the effect of removing the sting, if any there
be, from the word used in the publication."2
3. The statements of Fianza more particulary the following lines are
defamatory:
3.1 “Mga kapatid/kaibigan/kababayan, maawa naman kayo sa

amin na matatabunan ng Dam 2 ng Benguet Corp na sanaý
tulungan nyo kami. Salamat.”
3.2 “Pinanganak na po kami dito sa Itogon, sana naman huwag
nyo kaming tabunan ng putik at aalis na lang pag may
nangyaring sakuna.”
3.3 These lines are clearly defamatory as these impute a crime or
omission on the part of BC that was never committed.
3.4 And that the statements are clear and in plain and ordinary
sense the public would naturally understand what was posted.
This is the reason why the post could easily sow hatred among
the members of the community that discredit the good
reputation of BC.
b. The imputation must be made publicly, which requires that at least one other
person must have seen the libelous post, in addition to the author and the person
defamed or alluded to in the post.
1. Since that the facebook post was made publicly and that there are a
number of people who liked and commented in the post, the
second element is also present.
2. As stated in the complaint-affidavit paragraph number 11, the post
has gained already more than 100 likes and more or less 50
comments from different individuals.
c. The imputation must be malicious, which means that the author of the libelous
post made such post with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard
as to the truth or falsity thereof. (Yunchengco vs. The Manila Chronicle
Publishing Corporation, G.R. No. 184315, 25 November 2009.)
1. Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to
duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person
defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and
unjustifiable harm. It is present when it is shown that the author
of the libelous remarks made such remarks with knowledge that it
was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity
thereof.3
2. The facebook post of Fianza is malicious as it was not done as a
response to a duty. As an elected official, Fianza has all the means
to air these grievances in a proper forum. If he was sincere in
addressing the alleged hazard that the dam may cause, he must not
2
United States v. Sotto
3
have done it through social media as it is not a proper forum and
will not clearly initiate the legal process to address the alleged
issue. Clearly, Fianza wants two things: (a) to sow hatred in the
members of the communities surrounding the dam; and (b) to get
trust of the people for his own personal interests and motives.
3. In this jurisdiction, malice in law is provided in Article 354 of the
Revised Penal Code which states that every defamatory
imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no
good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.
Since that the post is clearly defamatory it is presumed to be
malicious and it is up for Fianza now to show that he has good
intention and a justifiable motive for making the post.
4. That the post is malicious is further supported by the fact that he
has knowledge that his post was false or with reckless disregard as
to falsity of his claim. This can be proven through:
4.1 Fianza’s knowledge of the project and his unjustifiable refusal

to listen to the explanation of the government agencies concerned
as stated in the Complaint-Affidavit paragraph 5.
4.2 Failure of Fianza to present evidence that he verified the truth.
“Moreover [respondents] published or caused the publication of

the subject defamatory articles with reckless disregard as to the
truth or falsity thereof. As previously stated, there is no proof that
the contents of the subject articles are true or that the respondents
exercised a reasonable degree of care before publishing the same.
[Respondents] failed to present evidence showing that they
verified the truth of any of the subject articles, especially in
light of the categorical denial by [petitioner] of the accusations
made against him.”4
4.3 Failure of Fianza to show that he made any attempt to talk to

BC and to the government agencies involved to verify his
statements.
“[Respondents] did not exercise reasonable degree of care or good

faith efforts to arrive at the truth before publishing the subject
defamatory articles. [Respondents] did not present any competent
evidence to establish the truth of their allegations against
[petitioner]. There was no showing that [respondents] made any
attempt to talk to [petitioner] to verify the statements
contained in the defamatory articles, especially considering the
gravity of the accusations made against [petitioner]. At the very
least, [respondents] should have exercised efforts to talk to
4
[petitioner] to clarify the issues and get his side. [Respondents']
failure to verify the truth of the information from [petitioner]
himself is in itself an evidence of their lack of bona fide efforts to
verify the accuracy of her information.”5
e. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is

dead, which requires that the post must identify the person defamed, or at the very
least, the person defamed is identifiable by a third person.
1. BC is a juridical person. BC was expressly mentioned or named in
the facebook post.
f. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the
person defamed. (Reyes, Luis B., Revised Penal Code, Fifteenth Edition, 2001,
page 932.)
g. The imputation was done through the use of a computer system or any other
similar means which may be devised in the future. (Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175)
5
Id

Had Upon The Minds of The Readers, and They Not Having Been

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Had Upon The Minds of The Readers, and They Not Having Been

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Had Upon The Minds of The Readers, and They Not Having Been

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benguet Corporation v. Alexander B.

a. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary,

3.1 “Mga kapatid/kaibigan/kababayan, maawa naman kayo sa

4.1 Fianza’s knowledge of the project and his unjustifiable refusal

4.2 Failure of Fianza to present evidence that he verified the truth.

“Moreover [respondents] published or caused the publication of

4.3 Failure of Fianza to show that he made any attempt to talk to

“[Respondents] did not exercise reasonable degree of care or good

e. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is

You might also like