MANILA, Philippines—(UPDATE) The Supreme Court has found columnist and former television anchor Erwin Tulfo guilty of libel for maligning and throwing “wild accusations†against a Customs official nine years ago.
Voting 4-1, the high court’s second division also affirmed the finding of the Pasay City Regional Trial Court that Remate managing editor Susan Cambri, national editor Rey Salao, city editor Jocelyn Barlizo, and publication owner Philip Pichay were all guilty of libel.
The high court, however, ruled that Tulfo and the Remate officials should not serve the prison term of six months to four years and two months as specified in the lower court decision for a series of articles that appeared in the tabloid Remate in 1999 that besmirched the reputation of Carlos “Ding†So, an officer of the Bureau of Custom’s intelligence and investigation service division.
Instead, they were told to pay jointly and severally So about P1 million in moral damages "for writing and publishing the defamatory articles with reckless disregard whether it was false or not, the said articles being libelous per se.â€
Any of the five who would fail to pay the fine would be imprisoned, the high court said.
The libel suits stemmed from the “Direct Hit†columns written by Tulfo that were run in Remate on May 11, 12 and 19, and June 15, 1999.
The columns accused So of corruption, unexplained wealth, extortion and smuggling.
In November 2000, the lower court found Tulfo and the four Remate officials guilty of libel and sentenced them to a "prison correctional in its minimum and medium periods" or two years, four months and one day to four years and two months.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions in 2003 and rejected the motions for reconsideration filed by the respondents, who then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
According to court records, Tulfo called So a thief and a “tie-wearing crocodile†in one column, and used certain expletives in other columns.
So said the columns caused him and his family sleepless nights, mental anguish, wounded feelings, intrigues and embarrassment.
In a 31-page ruling written by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, the Supreme Court said Tulfo had not only failed to get So’s side regarding the allegations but also made no effort to verify the information from an unnamed “source†who, the columnist said, had knowledge of So’s alleged illicit activities.
"Journalists have a responsibility to report the truth, and in doing so must at least investigate their stories before publication, and be able to back up their stories with proof,†it said. “The rumors and gossips spread by unnamed sources are not truth.â€
The Supreme Court rejected Tulfo’s argument that the information he wrote about was qualified privileged communication that was immune from libel.
"The confidentiality of sources and their importance to journalists are accepted and respected. What cannot be accepted are journalists making no efforts to verify the information given by a source, and using that unverified information to throw wild accusations and besmirch the name of possibly an innocent person," it said.
"Journalists are not storytellers or novelists who may spin tales out of fevered imaginings and pass them off as reality. There must be some foundation to their repots; these reports must be warranted by facts," the high court added.
Cambri, Salao, Barlizo and Pichay could not escape penalty for the libelous columns even if they had no part in writing them, it said, adding that as stated by Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the persons responsible for libel included publishers and editors.
The Supreme Court also said the punishment was “tempered with justice†because Tulfo and the tabloid officials were convicted of libel for the first time and did not apply for probation to avoid service of sentence. It added that the imposition of a fine without the prison term should suffice.
“Freedom of expression as well as freedom of the press may not be unrestrained, but neither must it be reined in too harshly. Lastly, the responsibilities of the members of the press notwithstanding, the difficulties and hazards they encounter in their line of work must also be taken into consideration,†the high court said.(inquirer.net)
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=15161.0
Topic: Tabloid columnist, editors found guilty of libel (Read 1072 times)