The Supreme Court (SC) has reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) as it acquitted tabloid columnist Raffy T. Tulfo in six libel cases filed against him and two others in 1999 by a lawyer assigned at the Bureau of Customs.

Originally, 14 libel cases were filed by BOC lawyer Carlos T. So against Tulfo as columnist, Allen A. Macasaet as publisher, and Nicolas V. Quijano Jr. as managing editor of Abante Tonite.

The trial court convicted them in 2005 on all the 14 cases. On appeal, the CA affirmed in 2006 the trial court’s decision. But in an amended decision issued in 2009, the CA ordered their acquittal in eight cases.

Tulfo, Macasaet and Quijano appealed their conviction in petitions filed with the SC.

In 1999 in his column “Shoot to Kill” in Abante Tonite, Tulfo wrote several articles on the alleged illegal activities of So at the BOC particularly on the lawyer’s reported shady dealings and extortion activities against brokers and shippers.

Tulfo also wrote on So’s alleged illicit affair at the BOC.

In the decision written by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC said “the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner Tulfo acted with malice, or with reckless disregard in determining the truth or falsity of the imputations.”

The SC said “petitioner Tulfo reported the alleged illegal activities of Atty. So in the exercise of his public functions. Our libel laws must not be broadly construed as to deter comments on public affairs and the conduct of public officials. Such comments are made in the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and the press....”

It said that “public officers are accountable to the people, and must serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

“Speech that guards against abuses of those in public office should be encouraged. Petitioner Tulfo should be acquitted,” the SC ruled.

In the case of Macasaet and Quijano, the SC cleared the confusion as to what accounts for liability for libel under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.

The SC said that when the accused has been specifically identified as “author, editor or proprietor” or “printer/publisher” of the publication, “there is no requirement to prove that they had knowledge and participation in the publication of the article.”

“Thus, a claim of absence of participation by those responsible under Article 360 of the RPC will not shield them from liability. The law is clear: These persons are liable for libel as if they were the author of the defamatory writing,” it said.

But the SC stressed that every prosecution for libel “must undergo the rigorous and exacting standard of ensuring that it does not violate the fundamental right to free speech and the press.”

The SC also said:

“We regard the vital role that the media plays in ensuring that the government and its officials remain true to their oath in carrying out their mandates in a manner prescribed by law....

“Nevertheless, the constitutionally protected freedoms enjoyed by the press cannot be used as a shield to advance the malicious propagation of false information carried out by unscrupulous entities to injure another’s reputation.”