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 PPIs 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 Prosecutors Office filed 13 counts of libel after finding probable cause to indict
the accused. Several of the accused appeled the Prosecutors 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 courts 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 Gimenezs premise of equating his first access to the defamatory article on petitioners
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.