Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    Ogie Diaz Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Vince Villanueva
    1) Ogie Diaz and Manny Pichel were charged with libel for publishing an article in a newspaper describing the alleged sexual activities of "Miss S" and Philip Henson. 2) The article detailed graphic sexual acts between "Miss S" and Philip Henson. Florinda Bagay claimed she was the "Miss S" referred to in the article. 3) The court ruled the article was not libelous because while it was defamatory, it failed to sufficiently identify "Miss S" as Florinda Bagay, a requirement for a libel case. The victim must be identifiable from the content or context of the publication.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ogie Diaz Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Vince Villanueva
    53 views2 pages
    1) Ogie Diaz and Manny Pichel were charged with libel for publishing an article in a newspaper describing the alleged sexual activities of "Miss S" and Philip Henson. 2) The article detailed graphic sexual acts between "Miss S" and Philip Henson. Florinda Bagay claimed she was the "Miss S" referred to in the article. 3) The court ruled the article was not libelous because while it was defamatory, it failed to sufficiently identify "Miss S" as Florinda Bagay, a requirement for a libel case. The victim must be identifiable from the content or context of the publication.

    Original Title

    Ogie Diaz vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Ogie Diaz and Manny Pichel were charged with libel for publishing an article in a newspaper describing the alleged sexual activities of "Miss S" and Philip Henson. 2) The article detailed graphic sexual acts between "Miss S" and Philip Henson. Florinda Bagay claimed she was the "Miss S" referred to in the article. 3) The court ruled the article was not libelous because while it was defamatory, it failed to sufficiently identify "Miss S" as Florinda Bagay, a requirement for a libel case. The victim must be identifiable from the content or context of the publication.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    53 views2 pages

    Ogie Diaz Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Vince Villanueva
    1) Ogie Diaz and Manny Pichel were charged with libel for publishing an article in a newspaper describing the alleged sexual activities of "Miss S" and Philip Henson. 2) The article detailed graphic sexual acts between "Miss S" and Philip Henson. Florinda Bagay claimed she was the "Miss S" referred to in the article. 3) The court ruled the article was not libelous because while it was defamatory, it failed to sufficiently identify "Miss S" as Florinda Bagay, a requirement for a libel case. The victim must be identifiable from the content or context of the publication.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Ogie Diaz vs.

    People of the Philippines


    (G.R. No. 159787)

    FACTS: On October 16, 1992, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed an Information for
    libel against Manny Pichel and Ogie Diaz (OgieFrias in real life), petitioner.
    That on or about December 28, 1991, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused
    being then the Managing Editor and writer, respectively of Bandera, a newspaper of general
    circulation, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, with the
    malicious purpose of impeaching the integrity, honor and reputation of one FLORINDA BAGAY,
    and with the evident intent of exposing her to public interest, hatred, contempt, and ridicule, did
    then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously write and publish, or cause to be written and
    published in the movie section of said newspaper an article which reads in part as follows:
    Ilang beses na nakaladkad ang pangalan ng isang Miss S sa buhay ni Philip Henson
    ang lalaking mahilig makipagsex sa asawa. Nasulat na sa ibang tabloid na limang beses
    diumanong ginalaw ni Philip ang babaing kine-claim na “nabuntis ako ni Philip.” Dahil sa
    pahayag na yon ay nagpaliwanang at nagbigay pa ng detalye si Philip. Nagpainterbyu siya sa
    ilang piling reporters. At muli, babanggitin lang naming ang kanyang mgapahayag tungkol sa
    pagkakasangkot niya sa buhay ni Miss S. Inamin ni Philip na limang beses niyang ginalaw si
    Miss S. Pero hindi ko pinasok ang akin sa ano niya dahil siya rin ang may ayaw. Ang sabi niya
    kasi sa akin, isa siyang malinis na babae at hindi siya basta-basta nagpapaganuon. So ang
    ginawa namin, ipit method. Yung ipitin niya iyong akin sa dalawa niyang hita kunwari sa ano
    niya nakapasok habang nagpa-pump ako. Siya pa nga ang nagturo sa akin ng iba’tibang
    posisyon, e yung helicopter at saka ang galling niyang bumlow job. Sanay na sanay siya. Kahit
    itanong nyo pa kay Ray Ravelo. Nagalaw din siya ni Rey, pahayag ni Philip at kami mismo ang
    nakarinig ng mga linyang iyon sa isa naming pag-uusap sa Jaloux Disco.
    Florinda Bagay, who happened to use “Patricia Santillan” as her screen name, claims
    that she was this “Miss S” being referred to in the said article.
    ISSUE: WON the subject article is libelous.
    RULING: NO. For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must be present: (a) it
    must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim
    must be identifiable. Absent one of these elements, a case for libel will not prosper.
    In the case at bar, it may be found that the first element present. In determining whether
    a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be
    taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by the
    persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another
    sense. In the instant case, the article in question details the sexual activities of a certain “Miss
    S” and one “Philip Henson” who had a romantic liaison. In their ordinary sense, the words used
    cast aspersion upon the character, integrity, and reputation of “Miss S.” The words convey that
    “Miss S” is a sexual libertine with unusually wanton proclivities in the bedroom. In a society such
    as ours, where modesty is still highly prized among young ladies, the behavior attributed to
    “Miss S” by the article in question had besmirched both her character and reputation.
    The last element of libel is that the victim is identified or identifiable from the contents of
    the libelous article. In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable,
    although it is not necessary that the person be named. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the
    allusion is apparent or if the publication contains matters of description or reference to facts and
    circumstances from which others reading the article may know the person alluded to, or if the
    latter is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that those knowing such person could and
    did understand that he was the person referred to.
    The libelous article, while referring to “Miss S,” does not give a sufficient
    description or other indications which identify “Miss S.” In short, the article fails to show
    that “Miss S” and Florinda Bagayare one and the same person.

    You might also like